Linden Labs Response to Complaint "Huh"??

We have seen numerous posts from desperate souls in these forums trying to find out why the cannot log into Second Life anymore. Linden Lab conducts their secret investigations and then suspends accounts. Many times the person calls, e-mails and screams and they still cannot find out why they are blocked from their account.
The Lindens seem to make these incidents personal instead of handling them with a cool head and making the situation go away. It could have been quite easier to call Bragg and work it out as opposed to ripping off his wings and kicking him out of paradise (drama!). It is not the good 'ol days (2004) when Linden Lab was impervious to harm. People are questioning and challenging the TOS everyday. It will be be interesting what TOS changes occur because if this.

the guy hacked second life no way would anyone let a hacker stay in second life. You want an active second life hacker to remain in second life this makes no sense after the land he might start in on accounts perhaps yours.

If linden labs doesn't remove hackers from second life when found if you think there are security issues now boy i challenge you to remain in this game with known hackers hacking the database on a routine basis

He purchased the land before it had been made accessible to the general public....

Sounds more like insider trading to me... pehaps LL needs to start an internal investigation...

He didn't hack, he found an exploit, a bit like landbots do. However when Landbots do it, it's the fault of the seller, when it happens to LL, it's a bannable offence.

The hyporcisy from LL is disgusting. Bragg found an exploit, landbots find an exploit, LL only care about Bragg.

okay well do something about it honestly I have not heard anything about bots exploiting they are faster then humans hence the problems

as far as i know he found along with others a hole in the system and managed to get into it using means that one should not have = hack as far as i know ?

anyhow go do something about the land bot issue I have sold to bots on purpose a couple of times but have yet to actually experience any exploits. They move fast as they are not human I dont like them but I see no rules in the tos saying you cant use bots unlike mmorpg's that ban bots this is not illegal here its in fact encouraged so the thing is see get the ripped off people together and go see linden labs using formal means like this bragg guy. His case is not exactly umm a good one but it shows that you can get stuff done if you try and if you are hurt enough by it.

maybe collectivly the guys hurt by this stuff can get together and do something proactive? I dunno seems to me everyone is hanging on this guys coattails trying to turn a case to their own means or just waiting to see what kind of tos changes occur.

Yes tos can be challenged many thought not but its true you can challenge pretty much any decision even aone based in law so challenge it. I can't I have no case here but if i were hurt enough by this i would do something about it

?

It is common practice among lawyers to stake out the most extreme, even egregiously unfair position you can to start with, on the theory that this puts you in the strongest negotiating position. Of course it utterly alienates normal people who are used to some approximation of civility, but never mind. The attitude is, so sue me.

I think it is lawyers who wrote much of the TOS.

So the lawyers assert you must come to San Francisco from the ends of the earth if you want to use arbitration, the only option we offer you (heh, heh, smirk, snort), among other things. Or else hire a $400/hour lawyer and take us to court (heh, heh, smirk, snort).

So now they are confronted with a (I'm guessing here) $400/hour lawyer who is IMO also a proper, bloody-minded bastard who is taking them to court. Obviously, the come-to-San-Francisco clause is unconscionable, and they lose on that one. Remains to be seen what else of the LL lawyers' extreme and egregious position will fail in court.

I suspect the proper bastard hoped they would settle and pay him off to get rid of him, and was wrong, just as I suspect the LL lawyers figured no-one would ever take them up on their proposition and actually sue, and were wrong.

With any luck here, both sets of lawyers will lose, and they ought to. This should be fun.

VR is getting more real and significant all the time. Was always only a matter of time before the lawyer mentality would bring VR to this pass. [Searches Internet for source of delivered buttered popcorn to munch while watching the spectacle.]

I wonder if the same judge has held other arbitration clauses to be null and void. The few times I have been able to muddle thru the fine print on a credit card contract, they usually always include a "This contract requires arbitration and is subject to the laws of Moosejaw Rhode Island. In the event we sue you, you will have to travel to Moosejaw and subject yourself to our bought and paid for judge."

Yep, and it "stands" until someone comes along who is actually willing to challenge them in court. Then the fur flies. [Reaches for popcorn.]

I always find it funny when "typing a web address by hand instead entering it via a weblink" is called "hacking".

Well in the UK banks and Credit card companies have had their arses handed to them regarding charges for people who didn't pay their bills on time. The charges were found to be excessive and they're having to pay people back some of the money they charged. The banks are scared to go to court over the issue.

Well whereas I agree that what he did was wrong, I'd call a hack using someone else's password to transfer the land. However I do agree with you that what he did was wrong and shouldn't have been allowed.

Morally what he did was wrong but not legally.

As i understand it, LL put up a publically accessible web page with an easily guessable URL from which land could be purchased at way below the real price. LL assumed that because this page was not linked from their website it was not accessible.

This is not dissimilar to those who put deeded land for sale fo L$1 intending to buy it back themselves assume that as the sim is empty no-one else will swoop and buy it, or those who put objects for sale on their private land for a particular person to buy and assume no-one else will swoop in and buy it - hence LL's hypocrisy over this issue when compared to their attitude towards landbots and searchbots.

Had the webpage Bragg used been restricted to limited IPs or via a username and password, then Bragg would have been acting illegally. However as this webpage was publically accessible by anyone, and at a URL easily derivable by anyone - legally LL was advertising land for sale at this reduced price.

Advertising at a particular price does not bind you to sell at that price, so LL could have rejected the sale. However they didn't - as I understand it they charged Bragg's credit card. At this point legally the sale has been concluded.

So whilst Bragg was clearly exploiting a mistake on LLs part (not dissimilar to how landbots explot mistakes!), he did not act illegally in any way.

LL then invoked the TOS. People often assume that the TOS are legally binding. They aren't - unfair clauses can be contested, in the UK clauses which contradict statuatory rights are automatically null and void (I do not know whether a similar situation exists in the US). Often the people who right them assume that the consumer does not understand their own rights or that the consumer will not go to the hassle or expense of contesting the TOS.

Of the various dubious clauses in LL's TOS the two key ones are the one limiting your arbitration options, and the one allowing LL to terminate an account without reason, notice or refund.

In summary, what Bragg did may have been morally wrong (but not legally wrong) but LL's actions were also wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right.

Matthew

Most if not all on-line games have a clause in their TOS that states words to the effect that gaining what is deemed an unfair advantage from a software error is deemed "not legal" in the broad context of the game. Usually it is designed to protect the game owner.

In the real world (at least in my country) if a bank or other financial business makes an error with your account and credits it with money not yours there is a fairly robust legal principle that states it is not your property, and that the bank can recover the money.

When I first read about this case though I had an initial view you could view it as a type of auction or stock sale, in other words once the deal was done that is it and it is set in stone.

Now I am not so sure as I think we can all be fairly sure it was a software error rather than a price error that gained (Bragg) this deal. If it was a jury case and I was on it I think I would vote in Lindens favour.

However if Linden took other virtual property outside this sole transaction that may not be legal in first life terms either, so it will be interesting to see what outcome transpires

Nope, no software error. the software was doing exactly what it had been written to do. the error was entirely human.

And LL has fairly well established that "I didn't mean to set it at that price" isn't grounds for reverting a sale.

While LL can establish "law" inside their servers they can't dictate RL contract law. Errors happen, even in sales (lease) contracts, and there are simple remedies for fixing them: one of which would have had Bragg simply pay the fair market value for those parcels or lose them.

A bit of information that the blog tries to gloss over is that Bragg never had the opportunity to make any use of his new land, ill-gotten or not, as they shut him out before he could.

LL's knee-jerk ban response - and their initial refusal to pay the requested US$8000 in damages is going to cost them (hence their customers) heavily, even if they prevail.

Incidentally, to those who think a "win" would be a feather Bragg's cap, he's got another attorney to represent him in this case (as he probably should).