Linden Labs Response to Complaint "Huh"??

If you steal a pair of sneakers, you will certainly pay a fine, you will probably be put on probation and you may even go to jail.

They will NOT decide that because the store clerk left the sneakers unattended that it's ok for you to take them.

Bragg should not be allowed to keep all of his assets ... maybe he shouldn't forfeit everything but he should forfeit some.

The real issue here isn't only the price he paid for the land, it's that he got access to it before it was opened for sale. To use another realworld example, Apple launched its iPhone last night. If an Apple store employee somewhere let his friend come in after closing on Thursday night, before they were to be released for sale, and sold him 80 iPhones for $9.99 each so that the friend could resell them for $100 less than Apple's retail, would that employee still have a job today? Would the buyer not be guilty of theft?

And do you not see how that hurts the customers who waited to buy the product by the rules, who then find that the store does not have as many as it should because someone exploited a weakness in the system?

At least in some jurisdictions, it has been established that simply typing in an url based on data that is freely and publicly available, is not a crime. The relevant laws are described in such terms as "invitation to treat". LL had a web page advertising goods at a certain price, and he offered to pay the advertised price. LL then accepted his offer through their automated systems.

Faced with similar circumstances, at least a few online merchants have in the past chosen to honour the sales, although in every case the lophole was closed rapidly.

What he is alleged to have done is akin to printing up a batch of fake bar codes, walking into a store, slapping them on items and using the self checkout. Mind you, this is considered shoplifting. Shoplifting of this value and sophistication would meet the requirements to be classified as a felony. A felony conviction is grounds for disbarment. It would be hard to continue a lawsuit while disbarred and possibly in prison without hiring a lawyer. Course thats kinda like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer.

Barcode theft:
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/12/63484418.shtml?Element_ID=63484418

The (California) State Bar Act: Article 6 (6100-611
http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=10159&id=1275

ABA: Model Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 8.4 Misconduct
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_8_4.html
(specifically paragraphs b & c)

ABA: The Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/discipline/mfrde.pdf

I just love google

The gist of the lawsuit is not whether or not he stole something.

Stealing is a criminal activity.

This is not a criminal case, it is in civil court. He is the plaintiff, not the defendant. I think if LL felt they had a case against him for theft, they'd have had the authorities after him already.

Many people are focused on whether the TOS is enforceable, and whether residents own virtual properties for which they paid real money.


Although I do not condone using such exploits to unfairly gain advantages, I am interested to see how it turns out.

Especially since part of the story alleges that he spoke to a Linden about it, and the Linden did not understand or pay enough attention and supposedly told him "Happy Bidding".

My opinion.

Heh. A couple of felony convictions might straighten up a lot of scamsters in SL.

But Strife, a point others have made is well taken: If what this guy did to an unsuspecting LL is theft deserving of strong punishment, why is the eerily similar thing landbots do to unsuspecting Residents trying to sell land not also theft and punishable by banning?

Ooh, and maybe confiscation! You could use the proceeds to finance a big landbot bonfire and celebration. Of course, you'd probably have to stage it simultaneously on about 100 sims, so many people would come to join the party...

But basically isn't Bragg just a thief? Just like the landbots, he used an exploit in the name of greed. It doesn't matter if the door is locked or not, a thief will simply pick them and an honest person won't.

To be that is the question, people who use bots or exploits just aren't honest people and are willing to hurt other people to make a few bucks. Lots of people can script, in SL very well, how many of them sink so low as to use bots? What kind of person looks at a structure and goes how can I circumvent this so I can make money? A thief would answer a smart one.

Since these people aren't dumb, they could have used their smarts to make money honestly. To me a thief is one by his nature and part of the reward is the pain caused to innocent people and a sense of superiority.

I don't mean that LL is innocent but to rig the land game by anything other than smarts and hard work harms all SL residents who behave honestly by lowering the bar on human interaction.

*sighs*

I have little or no influence over policy. I don't like landbots either (besides being devious, they cause drama on the forums, meaning more work for me), I do see the similarities and wish LL would do more to combat landbots. There are difference though: one situation involves a mistake the other involves hacking. This difference is probably what LL is hiding behind.

I don't know if that's what LL is claiming he did. But from the description of how he did it, I honeslty can't see what he did wrong.

But the "barcodes" attached to those sims he bought were the exact ones that LL slapped on them. He didn't switch any such data as I understand it. All he did was go to a web page that, although publicly accessible, hadn't yet been directly publicised by LL itself.

Actually, the underlying problem here is people turning SL into a giant game of "Gotcha!" for their own profit and whatever perverse satisfaction they get from it. In this case the party they "Gotcha'd!" was LL. Turn SL into a giant game of "Gotcha!" and the people who will remain longer than it takes to be victimized more than a few times will be countable on the fingers of one bot. After which, the "Gotcha!" players will look back in satisfaction to this exciting (for them) time and brag to their friends (assuming they have any), "Those were the days. We brought down that whole damn company!"

Exactly, because a 5 year old child could look at this and easily see the guy was wrong and a theif.

Bragg didn't steal anything. He bid on SL land, Linden Labs accepted his money. Transaction finished. This isn't akin to barcade theft, it's more akin to a store mistakenly putting a $10 price tag on a $100 doller item. If that store doesn't realize it's mistake beforehand and sells you that item at the marked $10 price that's their loss. They can't then seize the item after they've made the transaction with you.

it may not be a popular opinion, but i hope bragg rakes ll over the coals and i hope it HURTS.

If you are being an ass at Disneyland, they can and should ban you from the park, no matter if you bought the 3 day pass. The same principle applies here.

I think you are getting at the crux of the Bragg matter here. We spend hours lovingly arranging bits and bytes into the patterns we recognize as our AV and possessions. Is the money we put into LL simply a lease on services that LL can terminate at their discretion? Or is that arrangement of bits and bytes our property maintained in trust by LL. In which case LL would be required to maintain that property despite being pissed off at the owner. LL is breaking ground in defining what virtual reality is. That is going to require ground breaking law suits, laws and all the other sorts of rl messines. Personally, i am fascinated by the process and can't wait to see what unfolds.

Bragg's exploiting the auction site was indefensible and LL had every right to reposses the assets such acquired.

Grabbing all his other assets was disproportionate action however.

What has got LL into trouble however are some very dubious clauses in their TOS. For instance the clause which allows them to close an account without giving cause, giving notice or giving refunds (so they could close an account the day after you have paid a year's premier membership up front you lose that money).

There's is no ground breaking new legal issues here - just is a TOS which allows one side to terminate the contract without notice and without refund of usused subscription legally binding.

I can't speak for Californian law which would deal with LL TOS in this case, but under UK law the answer would be no - reasonable notice to terminate a contract is required on both sides, and terminating a subscription early would require a refund for time after the notice period.

There are other equally dubious clauses in there - did you notice the one which says that "If you request any technical support, you consent to Linden Lab's remote accessing and review of the computer onto which you load Linden Software for purposes of support and debugging."

Matthew

not to mention LL's assertion that they may not be sued, and arbitration is the only recourse they 'allow' you. and you must pay for the arbitration, use their arbitrator, and cannot reveal the details of the arbitration.
even now i am wondering if that can possibly be what LL dictate. it just seems too fucked up to be true.

If only this matter were so clear.

This thread is full of postings of reasonable people coming to opposite conclusions based on the facts available to all of them. This suit is not clear at all.

They have replied to me and apparently they are going to let merlin walk off with the parcel, they said the issue has been resolved and the parcel is still in merlin's name.

I am starting to wonder if he doesn't work for Linden Labs.

They are supporting him, not us. Go figure!

I would not call them good conclusions and the reasonable people can be unreasonable at times if it suits their needs. I would call it trying to twist something to suit your own cause (there is a difference and it happens often)

eg: casino's are a no no people try to rationalize certain things as not gambling machines even though they clearly are in an effort to still have a casino machines posted in advertising and to advertise it where they are not allowed etc.

In short its called "over thinking" and a lot of people do it

Well it's unfortunate for you that you don't work for Linden Labs, if you did you'd get the land back on the basis of a mistake.

Well, I am a victim of landbots, and I am starting to have a very low esteem for LL, they are not going to do anything, therefore they are supporting their activities.

Again, wondering if they actually work together.

You have no idea how bitter I feel about this situation.

The same bot has already taken advantage of two poor italian girls and got their SIM!

Linden lab hasn't done anything, for them. for us or any other victims out there.

It needs to be said clearly, when you log into SL, that should be the biggest tip they give to people: beware of landbots, we are supporting them and NOT you.

you could sue and challenge it. Honestly if you complain and it gets knowhere and are serious and its worth it money wise find yourself a lawyer. There are lots in SL looks some of those up and ask. Linden Labs wont be changing a lot in some issues unless they are challenged and forced to do so its sad but its true its what big business does go find the italian people and challenge it.

LL were quite cozy with the copybot blokes, so i wouldnt be surprised.

I'll second this. I am more curious to see how this will affect the ToS and how LL handles disputes in the future. After all, dispute resolution is a part of customer service. Right now, beyond arbitration, LL has none. Absolutely none. I could be banned today for no apparent reason, and it'd be difficult to reach LL to even FIND out why, let alone dispute it.

Regardless of the fact that I feel Bragg deserves some punishment, this actually needed to happen. It will bring about changes no matter who 'wins' in it and I'm actually curious as to what those changes will be.

Very well put. +1