Bragg Case

its interesting that when someone makes a mistake and gets taken by a landbot they are talked down and told to take responsibility and all, but when LL stuff up the tos gets trotted out and they are the 'victim'.
i hope bragg wins.

Gee Chip, I think I'm starting to figure you out. You make completely false statements like "Nowhere in the land store or in the description of tier fees is the word "own" used" and then tell those who point out the falsehoods to "take a chill pill" before stating that they're "not rational" or even "semi-intelligent." I agree there IS a fair bit of irrationality here, you've just gotten a little confused about the source. But then you also got confused about whether the word "own" was used in the land store, so not surprising.

Here is the text, in its entirety, from the "Land Pricing & Use Fees" section of the site...



I don't see the word "own" in there, do you? Dallas? I do, however, see the term "use fee" a lot, and even the word "lease," but not "own."

Below is the text, in its entirety, from the Islands information page...



The word own is used all of twice (only once referring to land), but it's used as an adjective, not as a verb which is a rather important distinction if your entire argument is based on semantics. I also see the up front cost described as a setup fee, and the tier described as a monthly maintenance fee. So where is all this false advertising again? Where's the supposed obfuscation? Sorry, not seeing it.

Yes. It would appear they acted as judge and jury in taking his in-world assetts.

Before the discussion about the new TOS and the Bragg case came up, I really thought I had bought something of value. Digital data hosted by LL, yes... but digital data that I own.
Do you really check for fine print or hidden terms of service each time you buy something online? I don't. When I buy a ware in an online store, be it a tangible or a digital ware, I assume that I acquire ownership with my purchase.

I didn't grow up with the internet though... perhaps that makes me gullible and inexperienced, I don't know. But so far every piece of hardware or software I bought online became my property after the purchase.

Of course, like every word in any language, the term "own" can be used in different ways. If a juvenile says to his mate "I totally owned ya", it's no indication of some form of slave trade going on.
But within a sales contract, the words "purchase" and "ownership" have a certain legal meaning. If you buy a car, your car dealer can't steal it back because you smoke inside it after the purchase. Even if there's some fine print in the sales contract stating "Ownership reverts back to the seller if tobacco is consumed inside the car". If he only meant to rent it to you, his advertising and the wording of the contract need to be different.

I believe the legal concept of digital ownership is established in legislation. Music, software programs, and digital art are all clear examples. Within Second Life the texture creators have already established some clear precedents. It therefore follows that the ownership of virtual space (land) is not different from the previous examples.

However it also seems clear to me that in first life, Second Life, and other digital environments it is quite common for restrictions to be placed on absolute ownership. Again in first life I own my own house but within it I am not divorced from the law. In Second Life and other digital environments, creators (which includes Linden Labs) tend to place restrictions on legal ownership or freehold such as no transfer or Linden Labs TOS.

What is interesting in all of this is seeing the first life legal system penetrating into Second Life. If Bragg wins (even in part) that establishes legal precedent and jurisdictions. That is of course good for first life corporate users of Second Life.

If on the other hand Bragg looses that might imply emanate domain within Second Life and other virtual worlds because Linden set the rules for Second Life entry and THEY are the government. That is also very interesting indeed because in effect the legal system would be saying Second Life is another country or place, that is a sovereign and independent State. I have raised this issue before but unfortunately some here seem to be intellectually challenged and unable to grasp that concept, (i.e. stupid or thick) sorry to be blunt. However for those who are interested this link clearly explains that point, in particular the history tab

http://www.sealandgov.org/

Here is a link to Wikpedia on this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

It is indeed an established concept. If I buy and use a software, I agree to certain terms of service. I'm not allowed to create and sell duplicates, for example. If I do so, the publisher can sue me. But that's ALL they can do. They can't break into my office, take back the software package, delete it from my computers and steal my purse on the way out.



Let one of the thick, stupid and intellectually challenged persons try to explain the difference between a real estate broker and the government. Of course you are bound to certain laws within your own house. But those laws aren't made by the person who sold you the house. These laws you are bound to affect everyone within the borders of your country. Be it Disney World, a website or a virtual world running on computer servers.

These laws say, among other things, that you aren't allowed to sell a ware, take it back without refund and take the rest of the customer's money while you're at it. Perhaps one could get away with that if one's servers are located in Sealand, if Sealand is ever recognized as a sovereign nation, but certainly not as long as they stand on Californian soil or in any other part of the civilized world, where laws assure certain customer rights and also deal with misleading advertising.

No matter how bright and intellectually unchallenged you think you are, it is obvious that every customer profits from a legal precedent in favor of the rights of all customers, not only corporate users. Paying large sums for virtual property that could be annexed at any time, for any arbitrary reason the seller makes up, is not a condition that any customer could be happy with, unless the customer has masochistic tendencies.

A quick search on google news reveals:

http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&ned=au&q=software+piracy&btnG=Search+News

Digging down a bit, we find that theft is actually theft, and not only will the publisher sue you, the law of the land will descend upon you, extradite you to the united states, and smite you down with great vengeance.

This is *after* they break your door down and confiscate all of your computer equipment and software collection as evidence.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39287700,00.htm

Any other questions?

Yes, they can sue you and then take the stuff back. But until this SL case came along, it was fairly well-established that they had to sue you, going through the legal system, before they could take the stuff back. LL has side-stepped the law courts in taking the items from Bragg. They are also side-stepping the law courts in the punitive means of discouraging fraudulent linden dollar trades.

With that little exception being you dont really Own anything in Second Life.

Its more like violating your lease.

Your account is just one big nested lease of server presence.

Your can Lease Server Space ( Virtual Land )

You lease your appearance, your clothes, your entire virtual persona. The minute you stop paying your bill you lose access to that persona and things that can easily be leased out to other residents ( ie Virtual Land) are.

You can lose your lease in other ways - such as bahavior or ... Exploiting bugs.

and that alone is somethin that can score points with an observant judge(changing the ToS so fit current uncomfy positions LL may find themselves in), for LL to do the "right" thing would have made waaaaaay too much sense, and instead they used knee jerk tactics to cover thierperspective rears. i agree on the hack part, it was an exploit that LL caused, hence all they had to do was refund the dudes moneys, nd takethe land, i too have yet to hearof land purchased from LL is paid in anything but cash(although in purchases between residents lindens are used) i did ask and have yet to have my question answered regarding LL being able to fight something they themselves caused, and with goodconcious since people are being screwed by the landbots....<shrugs>

It isn't as if LL is alone on this kind of thing though. "Product activation" is a classic example, where if you are pirating a piece of software, the software company can simply disable it remotely instead of (or in addition to) suing you for piracy.

great analogy, however Sotheby's bears the brunt of repsonsibility due to the fact that the stairway was available for use, with no discerning marks saying he SHOULDN'T be there. for all intents and purposes, there was no sign nor warning regarding the use of said online bidding nor was thier ample security to stop said persons from making, whether you beleive it or not, legitimate purchases. he just had no competitors in the bid to drive it up. yes its unethical, yes it sucks, yes he took advantage of an " open door", but for Sotheby's to toss him out on his collective was wrong. instead those assets should have been frozen, he should have been refunded the initial amount of his purchases and locked out of any future auctions(at least under that name).

one wonders though since he filed suit same day, if he deliberatly did so just to take LL to court anyway?

No, it wasn't. To access the future auctions, you had to forge a URL.

It's fairly established that the only way you can be sure you are authorised to be on a web page is that either a) it's the root page of a site, or b) there is a link to it from another page controlled by the authorising party.

If Bragg's actions were theft or fraud, then Linden Labs would have criminal and civil actions agaisnt him on those bases. There are two reasons that Linden Labs would not pursue those avenues. One is simply cost- just taking all his money and/or digital property from his account is easier than going to court.

But Linden Labs has a second problem which creates a fundamental legal delimma for them- to pursue theft or fraud charges against Bragg, they would have to admit that Linden dollars have real value and aren't just play money, and they would have to admit that virtual land is actual digital property and not just play land.

The pendulum swings both ways. If Linden dollars have value, and virtual land is digital property, then they might very well have good theft and fraud actions against Bragg. But then they open themselves up to liability for software glitches that destroy inventory, arbitrary bannings that seize or destroy inventory or land, and failure to fix exploits that some residents use to take things from others. If Linden dollars have value, and digital land is property, then now they are opening themselves up to RESPONSIBILITY.

At this point, Linden Labs is trying to have it both ways. For purposes of encouraging consumers to sign up for accounts and spend their money in Second Life, Linden Labs asserts that Linden dollars have value and virtual land is digital property. For purposes of Linden Labs hiding from responsibility for anything they do that affects their customers, Linden dollars are play money and virtual land is play property, no value to either.



Using ownership terminology in advertising but not in the fine print is more than a bad idea, it's bait-and-switch, an illegal sales tactic in most states. Here's the problem. The big huge words on the Second Life home page encourage you to BUY and OWN virtual land, in short, easy-to-understand language. That Linden Labs is operating on a different definition of "own" than is in common usage is buried in lengthy, boring, rambling text, that you might find on a treasure hunt of following links in small fonts, which are not indexed for easy retrieval and are hard to find in searches.

Linden Labs wants you to act on the promise of buying and owning land. They want you to act while you are still excited about the idea of buying virtual land, and before you finish reading the find print. They are counting on your eyes glossing over the fine print, if you even find it.

I agree that it is not wise to invest a lot of money in anything before doing the research. Anyone who actually, successfully reads through all that fine print would be insane to invest any significant money in Second Life under those lopsided terms without any assurances whatsoever from Linden Labs that there is at least reasonble protection for the investment.

That's the dirty little secret. Linden Labs profits off of the unwary. While courts typically don't protect the unwary or stupid, they also don't protect those who intentionally try to take advantage of the unwary, or put customers off-guard. If the seller is acting in good faith, then buyer beware may apply. But Linden Labs tactics of advertising one thing then contracting the other in the fine print is not acting in good faith.

Bait-and-switch also violates consumer protection laws in most states.

This isn't like "satisfaction guaranteed" in the dry-cleaner case. In that case, the court decision was not based on the principle that "no reasonable person should expect a merchant to deliver what the merchant advertises." It was that "satisfaction" should be interpreted to an objective standard of reasonableness, not the customer's subjective, idiosyncratic concept of satisfaction. I think when Linden Labs advertises land for one to OWN, then the customer is entitled to rely on some sort of common meaning of what it means to own, not Linden Labs's redefinition or non-definition of ownership buried in fine print. While ownership may mean different things with respect to different types of property, to own something commonly means that one has the right to decide of how to dispose of that which is owned.

This case is more like an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The ATHF and Carl buy sodas from a restaurant after they see a television advertisement, in which winning soda cup would entitle them to free wasabi fries. Whether the cup is a winner or not is written at the bottom inside of the cup. When Carl finishes drinking his, the message in the cup informs him that he has not won the fries, but that workers from the restaurant would be coming to castrate him and take ownership of the bodily part removed from him. Frylock reads the fine print, and explains to Carl that, by drinking the soda, he entered into a legally binding contract with the restaurant that allowed them to remove and take possession of certain of his body parts.

Yep. The law would descend upon me... not the publisher. If someone steals from you, it doesn't give you the right to kick down his door and break his arm. You'll have to leave that to the legal authorities.

Um, I don't think they would. The auctions that he interfered with were in US$ - no L$ involved. And the "is land property" issue also I don't think would come up, since as long as it's something that should have been sold for more and he took it for less by cheating the system, that's all that matters. If someone for example hacks into eBay and uses that to cheat on an auction for some WoW Gold, then the judge surely doesn't need to consider whether WoW Gold is really "property" or not.

I think the reason is more likely to be the one you mentioned first, because it's cheaper not to go to court. Also as I'm told, it's always better in law to be the one who _gets_ sued, not the one doing the suing, because a) it means that the burden of proof is on the other party, and b) the party that gets sued is usually the one that's "on top" right now and will stay that way if nothing changes, and the one suing is the one losing out.

I completely agree (didn't want to quote the complete post, but I agree with the rest of it too).

You did buy something of value - the right to use virtual land in Second Life and the ability to resell that right to someone else. In essence you do own the land, but there are restrictions on that ownership inherent to the medium. In order to make use of or resell those rights you have to maintain your useage fees and remain a Second Life member in good standing.



I do always read the fine print before I spend a large sum of money. But we're not talking about fine print here. The information isn't in any way hidden. If you're going to buy land in SL and can't be bothered to read two short pages of information that are clearly labeled and in plain sight, whose fault is that? It's pretty clearly spelled out on the site what it is you're getting and what you're paying for, and as for the TOS, you can't purchase any land until you've already become a member of SL which you can't do without being presented with the terms of service and agreeing to its terms. Even if all you did was skim and read the section headings that are in bold you'd have gotten both of the following important bits...



and



Those are both quite clear and just skimming the bolded parts of the TOS takes all of 60 seconds. They're also not new. As far as I know both of those clauses have been there all along. But, even if they weren't, the part where LL reserves the right to change or ammend the TOS at any time at its sole discretion is right in the very first paragraph, as is an admonition to decline the agreement if you find any part of it objectionable.

Now if all the requisite information is put in front of you, and you don't avail yourself of it before stating you agree with the terms and spending your money, should that really be LL's liability? In my opinion, no, because there's nothing at all deceptive or hidden unless you, through your own negligence, fail to read the terms before accepting them. Further, Bragg wasn't kicked out for something arbitrary. He plainly, and with malice of forethought (by his own admission), used an exploit for finanical gain. Given all of the above I really don't see why anyone would be hoping for Bragg to win unless they have a grudge against LL and just want someone to "stick it to the man." Everyone here was free to decline the TOS either initially or after any changes were made, at which time they could agree with the terms but liquidate their assets and leave.



That would be a fair argument if the actual terms were hidden, but they aren't. Bait and switch refers to advertising a product that the advertiser has no intention of actually selling and then using high pressure sales tactics to sell a different and more expensive product. That simply doesn't apply here. I don't believe use of the word "own" can be considered as a bait and switch when no other misleading information is presented about what that ownership actually entails. It's all spelled out in information you have to agree to before you're ever given the opportunity to buy land.

ok, but isn't the brunt of braggs argument the fact that he did get the link from a "linden"?
let's forget the fact that he is a lawyer, which seems to be a sore point with many, and concetrate on the fact that he did act " in good faith on advice given by a trusted source" stop laffing) or did he truly hack into the auction site and trigger an auction? thats where im confused.

It's a complicated balance though. If someone comes into your house and steals something, you want to be allowed to remove them for your house (or to get your husband or neighbour to) right away. You don't want to have to call the police, and while you wait for the police to arrive they carry on stealing stuff and putting it in their pockets, and when the police actually arrive they stop stealing, so the police can't arrest them or search their pockets because the police have no evidence they've done anything wrong, and do you have the receipt for the ornament they just pocketed, no, well then the thief says it is his and he was carrying it in his pocket that day, and you can't prove them wrong..

Sad to say you still have not assimilated the second point I made, deciding instead to loose the principal in a load of waffle lightly tinged with sexual innuendo

Allow me to reproduce the salient point of my second comment.

History Of Sealand

During World War II, the United Kingdom decided to establish a number of military bases, the purpose of which was to defend England against German air raids. These sea forts housed enough troops to man and maintain artillery designed to shoot down German aircraft and missiles. They were situated along the east coast of England on the edge of the English territorial waters.

One of these bases, consisting of concrete and steel construction, was the famous royal fort Roughs Tower situated slightly north of the estuary region of the Thames River. In contrast to the original plan to locate the tower within the sovereign territory of England, this fortress was situated at a distance of approximately 7 nautical miles from the coast, which is more than double the then applicable 3 mile range of territorial waters; to put it briefly, this island was situated in the international waters of the North Sea.

After WWII ended, the troops were withdrawn from all bases by the British Admiralty. None of them was ever used by the United Kingdom again, leaving the forts deserted and abandoned. Except for the aforementioned fortress, the bases were subsequently pulled down. This resulted in the portentous uniqueness of the fortress. Fort Roughs Tower, situated at the high seas, had been deserted and abandoned, res derelicta and terra nullius. From a legal point of view, it therefore constituted extra-national territory.

History Of Second Life

It arose from nothing, as a new virtual place in 2003. In effect Governor (or God) Linden said "Let there be virtual light". "And there was light" The US Government were not there first. The fact that servers are present on US land is not necessarily proven to be relevant given that no US tax is due on profit made in Linden Dollars and kept in Linden Dollars. Currently there is not proven US jurisdictions hence one of the reasons for the court case

Read this link again

http://www.sealandgov.org/history.html

from Bragg's court filing...



In other words, someone posted about the exploit, presumably to bring it to LL's attention, and Bragg decided he'd make use of it himself. Or, maybe he got the idea from this thread? /130/35/104103/1.html

Another humorous bit from his filing...



Can he be any more disingenuous? He couldn't have had any virtual property, land, or items without clicking through the TOS first. A lawyer who agrees to contracts without reading them first? hmmm. Might it be that he read the above thread and hatched a plan to sue before ever even making use of the exploit? Just speculating, but it makes you wonder doesn't it?

A lawyer acting disingenuously? Hmmm...... a novel idea........