lindens latest blog: dob a neighbour

There's also a precedent for courts to ignore TOSes that try to say "either you can't do any business with us, or you can't sue us" - PayPal used to have a TOS that included that, and it was defeated a while ago. Denial of Due Process isn't a pretty thing for a software company to get involved in.

On another note, though, that could have triggered off the current situation. If it turns out that the part of the TOS which says "you are supposed to be 18 to login here, but we don't guarantee that anyone is following that rule" is not legally enforcable then essentially LL will have to demand age verification for every user or completely ban all non-PG content on the grid.

To be honest I'm sure this could have been seen coming. SL are selling LL as a development platform, and development platforms that people take seriously generally don't include objects with names like "The Violator" or "Whip - Womanbeater 2000".

Anyone could bid on them, but the only way to access them to bid on was to use the same loophole he used.

The issue was more that he was able to bid on the auctions before the Lindens had initalised the price. So he was able to bid US$2 for a sim, for instance.

I can't comment about the second part, but I know how he did the first part. Auctions have a unique id, which is visible in the url if you go to the auctions page. He found that by modifying the url to include the auction id of auctions not yet live, he could still enter a price and trigger the start of the auction despite it not being visible from the main auctions page.

For example, the most recent sim auctioned (Valgerd) had an id of 0026202880, and you can see the completed auction by going to http://secondlife.com/auctions/detail.php?id=0026202880 .

As far as I know, the dispute isn't so much about LL reacting to the use of the exploit, but the fact that they also forfeited land which he didn't acquire through the exploit.

According to the TOS we all agreed to that's perfectly acceptable, and you're not allowed to appeal through any other means than contacting LL. LL's lawyers are taking the stand that you own nothing and that LL doesn't owe you anything and can do as it sees fit for whatever reason.

He asserts that LL (in the person of Philip) paints a very different picture in interviews claiming that you own that which you buy and that any IP belongs to you and if you actually "RL own" land then LL can't just take it away without proper justification (which they had in the case of land acquired by the exploit, but didn't in land that was acquired legally).

Someone please correct if I got it wrong .

This is correct but for one detail. At that time, you could fly over a "due-to-be-auctioned-but-not-yet" sim and see the future auction ID number in the About Land requester; he then used this ID number to forge a URL to the auction bidding page.

I don't think that's the case, Warda. As far as I know as soon as he put in the first bid it started the timer and the auction would finish with him the winner before the page was ever visible to anyone not also using the URL exploit. Otherwise he'd never have won the auctions. I also believe that the money he claims was taken from him by LL is nothing but the profits he got from reselling the land he essentially stole in the first place.

No, the dispute is over other land also taken by LL which he did not acquire in this fashion.

There's a huge analysis of this by Tateru Nino on Second Life Insider.

You're right - part of his allegation is that LL committed "fraud" by advertising "ownership" of land and other items when in fact, he claims, the fact it can be taken away at any time makes it different enough from actual ownership that to use the term is fraudulent.

(This supposedly was his big "legal gotcha", since he argued that the Lindens must lose either way. If they were found to have been wrongful in taking the land away, they'd have lost; and if it was found that this was not wrongful, that very finding must demonstrate that the land wasn't really "owned" since it should be wrong to take away something someone owns, and thus they must have committed fraud. Doubtful, but the current decision regarding the TOS was very doubtful too..)

He also seems to be arguing that at the moment he paid money for Second Life land, that suddenly created a whole new contract of sale between him and LL - and since LL didn't expressly mention the TOS on the land pages, the TOS wasn't part of that new contract. Thus for LL to cut him off from Second Life and might be permitted under the TOS, but it breaks the secondary contract of sale for the land.

In my opinion he gave up any rights to anything he had in his SL account when he blatantly and knowingly violated the terms of service (which he never bothered to read by his own admission). Now if he had been wrongly banned it would be another story but as it stands this is like a burglar suing a home owner for an injury he suffered while breaking the door down.

Would people PLEASE stop dragging up the stupid nazi allusions? GET REAL. THAT is denigrating to whoever had the misfortune in their lives to live under oppressive regimes. We're talking about a VIRTUAL world that all of us have the CHOICE to enter or leave.

And please leave the burqa jokes outside the door as well. There ARE people around in SL who might actually want to wear a virtual burqa for religious reasons. And it's rubbish to make fun of that. It would be funnier if anyone came up with a full sackcloth dress or something, but not an ethnic or religious garment.

And judging by the huge audience participation and in world reaction that blog posts normally cause, I don't see why I should panic. LL SHOULD get someone else to do the blog posts though. That was far too Disney for me.

@Chip Midnight: My thoughts exactly, on the LL blog post. Stop panicking, people.

According to the court decision, the enforceability of those terms of service is questionable. In particular, the court has found that the arbitration clause is not applicable.

Contract law doesn't work like that. It's perfectly possible for parts of the ToS to be set aside without invalidating the entire contract.

"Stop panicking, people."

youre next, Neko.

Sure mate, I'm SO afraid now.

"Sure mate, I'm SO afraid now."

Funny, that was my attitude two weeks ago . .

You should be. I suggest that if you engage in any SL sex you be very careful about it. Some might find it offensive.

I'm confused by one thing, though: this is the same Second Life that has a Playboy sim opening up, right?

Mari

I couldn't care less for pose ball restricted pixelated nasty....the only arousing thing about it for me is getting a laughing fit. No danger there. I'd rather get reported for blowing people's heads off i guess. If you want to report my cat ears and tail, go ahead. I still think it's extremely unrealistic to suddenly feel oppressed and hunted and whatnot in RL.

Well, this insanity came at a convenient time for me. I rent a room on an adult sim that requires payment info on file and an interview to join. I (and my fellow roleplayers) regularly engage in some of the activities described in the LL blog post. We have combat, kidnapping, D/s, S/M, slavery, and probably lots of other stuff that the thought police would find "broadly offensive".

Rent on my room is due today. I had planned to pay it when I got online tonight, but if the entire reason I live there has suddenly been banned in this way, what's the point of continuing to live there or go there at all? The roleplay will be deadly boring without the sex and violence. If I wanted a boring PG life I'd stay in RL!

I thought they had lost their minds when they banned ageplay but now they have gone totally round the bend.

Grace
(Who answers to "little girl" in RL whether the Lindens like it or not!)

omg you are so going to get banned from RL now!

Alyx Sands, not participating in the activities listed is no protection against a griefer claiming that you have. All that is necessary is the accusation.

Your empathy for those who will be targetted by this new policy is heartening.

They are jokes, you're right, but they're not really funny. We aren't making fun of the burqas, just the mentality. Unfortunate for the garment, it is the only commonly know garment to completely cover a human. There is only one other garment I can think of, and it's white. And I'm NOT about to wear it, though, yes, as far as I know, both are pretty well know for representing opression.

To all those referencing the bible I'd just like to point out you are referencing the old testament (old law) which is not valid christian law since the acceptance of the new testament (new law).

Maybe it is time to start another open letter to be sent to LL...

The more I see of this kinda stuff, the more I've started to distance myself. SL is starting to seem too much like RL. I don't cyber or watch porn, or shoot guns in SL, but variety is the spice of life. It saddens me to see the rediculous things that the Lindens are doing. What happened to fantasy? Someone needs to create a Hypoctitical Biggot's Life and maybe some of our world will reappear. As it stands now, my spark is quickly deminishing for the pass time I learned to love last summer. Had I been able to forsee what was coming, I would have certainly remained unverified and would never had bought property. As it stands now, I'm online less than a third of the time I was last year at this time and closed have even my main shop. Now I just have to decide if I'm selling the beach property I rent or the land that I bought. Leaning toward mainland as I'm not as keen to give LL my money as I was last year. At least on my estate island SIM, there's customer service from the Admins.

"Second Life, Imagine Our World"