Many organised crime organisations are seeing this a great means of laundering money all int he name of gaming and if you look deep enough you will see just how corrupt Linden Labs really is… all in the name of gaming

Bragg is complaining because he got caught scamming SL. Suck it up!!!

Wir programmieren nur mit C , genau wie Microsoft. Wir sind eine Firma, die

This, to me, drops into the category. He obtained this virtual property by deception; it was therefore forfeit. With regards to any property he gained legally, he knew he was jeapardising that when he tried to cheat the system. He knew the risks. Breach of ToS equals banning with no compensation.

This comes down to culpability. It’s got nothing to do with what Linden Labs can and can’t do, want to do and don’t want to do. This was one person who purposefully set out to break the rules, IN THE KNOWLEDGE that if he got caught, Linden Labs would ban him. At the end of the day, that’s the issue at the back of this – whether or not he should take responsibility for deliberately breaking the rules and the consequences involved in getting caught.

The fact remains, if he hadn’t deliberately tried to cheat the system, there would have been nothing for him to be caught doing and nothing that Linden Labs would have banned him over. I do agree that if Linden Labs just close your account with no explanation and seize your assests you’d have cause to bring case against them, but everyone seems to be of agreement that this person DID CHEAT.

If you’re honest, you don’t risk anything. This person wasn’t, and he got unlucky and got caught. He paid the price. He can’t expect the judiciary to come to his rescue because he committed fraud in the first place. Sorry, but I don’t have ANY sympathy for him, and neither do I believe that he has a case.

The simplified principle of tax law, for instance, is if you make money, the government gets part of it.

The simplified base of commerce law is if you sell someone something, you must provide that something.

And if you take the thing back, you may be forced to refund the money.

And certainly if you take the thing back, you shouldn’t not only keep the thing, but take other money or goods the person has, as well.

I’m not saying this is true in this particular case.

I’m saying that the idea that you can set up a game or a platform -

. such that the customer pays for a product but doesn’t get it

. or such that the company takes and keeps money but renigs on the service and provides no refund

. or is allowed to do anything it wants to, including keeping your money but providing no service, for any reason or for NO REASON AT ALL

- is, I think, an idea that has lived past its time, and in fact should never existed.

This set-up not legal for other companies, and I don’t think gaming companies (or “platforms”) are going to get away with it forever, either.

coco

When even Mr Neva, who is not noted for his irrational Linden Lab cheerleading, thinks this whole thing is a nonsense, one has to wonder. This idea that LL are being deceptive in using the word “own” when really, it should be “rent according to certain conditions” is not something I believe would ever stand up. And that’s all he has. And even that has to be considered in the face of the clear fact that he’s been attempting to defraud them.

Somehow the game companies have this thing going where they can take your money and deny you service and keep the things you paid them money for, and the money you legitimately earned on the game, and that’s okay just because you had to sign that click-through thing.

I think the law is going to change all that, eventually.

coco

I didn’t say ‘everybody’, I said ‘every cyberspace lawyer that I have seen comment on this’. Do you have a pointer to an exception?

Also, I don’t party with lawyers at gaming conferences. As the photos from the Herald paparazzi show, I party with the *Lindens*, but I listen to the lawyers:

http://www.alphavilleherald.com/archives/000517.html