Illegitimate Business Practices

I pay rent on land I didn't have to buy, and wouldn't ever buy because at no point does it transfer ownership of it to me. The problem people have isn't with the rent part, it's with the buy part.

If you're set on charging money for land you keep on owning, then at least be fair about it and call the "buy" fee a deposit, and return it when they vacate the land.

The problem, if it is one, is about the semantics.

In RL real estate terms, when you "buy" SL land from LL, you are actually paying a fee to acquire a land lease that allows you to build on or use the land as you wish but requires a monthly rental. It is of indefinite duration but can be cancelled at any time by either party. In RL, nobody would pay much for such a lease, but that is what is on offer in SL where, as we all know, the rules can be quite different.

When you "buy" from another resident, there are two possibilities. You may be paying him off and taking over his land lease from LL, in which case he gets out of the picture and you pay your "tier" fee (aka rent) to LL and do what you want with the land. Or, you may be subletting from him, which is when you pay him/her a "tier"-like rent and the landlord pays LL, and you may have to abide by conditions set down by the landlord that may or may not let you alter the property.

When you "rent" from another resident, you are also subletting, under both the conditions set by LL above and any other conditions your landlord may impose. And generally you can't make significant alterations in the property without landlord permission. A major offsetting advantage in subletting either way is that you can pay the landlord in L$ but he has to pay LL in US$.

The confusion comes in because the term "buy" is being used much too loosely in SL, and the term "own" is being used much too loosely times ten.

Simplest way to think about it: It's the residents' game, but we're playing it in LL's ballpark.