You just post out the wazzooo to drive traffic to your silly little website you tie to your posted name…. you’re just too funny. Good thing no one takes you too seriously. Thanx for the humurous postings my friend.

And yes, I have worked in law. And yes, I have dealt in virtual cases. And I’m currently working on the bar. But what I’ve said to you isn’t anything special based on that experience. What I’ve said is readily available through the internet through law libraries.

As for IP rights… you’re the dumbass to bring it up. Don’t argue it, then when someone proves you wrong, say, it’s not part of the case. That just looks absurd. Secondly, the are you dumb enough to think that ‘retain’ and ‘grant’ are the same thing?

As for using an exploit… uh… duh. That’s what I’ve been saying. Are you really idiotic enough to use what I’ve been saying as how it IS an exploit to argue against me that… it is an exploit?

The only one sounding uninformed is you. You sit here and state you hate ‘internet lawyers’, yet here you are giving your ‘legal’ opinions. Guess you really are self loathing.

As for one of those TONS of cases? The most famous coming to mind, is the Enron scandal and let’s toss in the Martha Stewart case. In those cases, assets personal and professional were frozen after investigation pending a judgement. Want to go smaller? All over the country, local public positions have embezzled money from the governments they work in, and have had personal and professional assets and accounts frozen upon investigation, pending judgement. Of course, being as so wonderfully brilliant as you are, I’m sure you know all about them right? But alas, no matter how much proof I come up with in my argument, it doesn’t matter because *YOU* don’t hear about them in your hole, and therefore it’s not true!!!

As for breaking into your house, I was putting the situation in your personal space. Get over calling everyone stupid names when they make a point you can’t counter. I think I just found your specialty! Labeling people when they make you look silly!

You always want proof of everyone off their statements and want to know their qualifications from everyone and their names and blah blah blah, but you don’t have to provide any information on what formed your opinion. How hypocritical of you… you are no better than anyone else, and judging by my associations with you over the last year, you have no idea what you are talking about 99% of the time.

Please do us all a favor and shut your mouth when all you have to say is rambling nonsense.

RZ, there were several judgements in the late 90′s and early 00′s in favor of consumers, brought by a class action, when the companies they bought from reneged on the pricing stated on a website. Even though refunds were issued, it was the company who advertised the deal and it was put up. In a few of the cases, the judge ruled that the private firm responsible for the pricing error comp the company for lost revenues and in turn the company had to provide the price that the consumers bought the item for.

The reasoning behind these judgements in favor of the consumer is that they don’t have the ability to judge whether or not it is an intentional pricing. There’s no way to know it’s an obvious mistake as the consumer. Corporations every day are offering 1 cent sales, 1 dollar sales, etc. for a limited amount, and therefore it wasn’t unreasonable to expect that the items they purchased were part of a marketing promotion. A few companies that IIRC that were involved for internet pricing for Wal-Mart (movie mispriced), Air Tran (air tickets), Best Buy (CD’s), and Victoria’s Secret (bras).

When Amazon offered 100 Playstation 3′s for (I think) 100 bucks or something ridiculously cheap this past Christmas, if the judgements had not gone in favor of consumers in previous cases, they could have easily said ‘oops nevermind’ and gotten all the publicity to go along with it.

There are bills now protecting consumers passed by Washington in… 2002 or 2003, that says a company that sells a rate, and the payment processing accepts that and does bill the consumer, they must hold true, because just as the contract on anything else is binding for the consumer, it must also be binding for the company. This is usually the bill cited in the cases of internet purchasing and most states have a Consumer Protection Division now, that works like the Attorney General for consumers.

However, this is irrelevant, since the sims were not on a public url, for others to be able to utilize.

Seola, your statement is simply incorrect. If an item is obviously mispriced, there is no “meeting of the minds” at the time of purchase. No contract is formed where one party to the contract has actual knowledge that the other contracting party is under a mistake of fact as to the contract terms. In other words, you can’t take advantage of what you know is an obvious mistake. Therefore, no contract is formed for the purchase of the mispriced item, and the seller is under no obligation to complete the transaction.

That’s how the law works, no matter how much you might think otherwise.

Oh, I forgot to answer this one back then. Cite one, then, if there are TONS? That is relevant to this case? And frankly, I don’t care if you come up with 1,124. They aren’t the norm. They are the exception. Most of the time, due process is used to seize property. You could argue this wasn’t done with LL, but they could argue back that under the EULA of this club, they have that right.

Again, there isn’t one, single, bona fide case of *virtual property* being examine by a RL judge in the US in this way. And saying that it’s all on a server, that LL owns it all, etc. etc. isn’t the sort of thing if you were purchasing server space and making a website. So why say it here? It’s essentially the same thing. It’s a server of storage that people purchase. When you rent the $40 box at Manhattan Storage each month, Manhattan Storage doesn’t come out on its forums every day and whack you over the head, or sic their fanboyz at you, telling you that you don’t really own that storage space, that you are on suffrance, and that they own the warehouse, and fuck you.

Instead, they keep taking your money, and you keep your boxes and crates there. Honestly, the real world is a much nicer place than the forums filled with fucktards and Internet lawyers feeding on Second Life.

Read none other than the Lindens’ own blogs on the official website blogs:
http://blog.secondlife.com/2005/04/
Where Babbage Linden under the article “Screenplay 2005″ says, “Linden grants IP ownership to residents”.

Furthermore, if you are going to be citing the TOS zealously, read what you just printed:

“Linden Lab acknowledges and agrees that, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, you will retain any and all applicable copyright and other intellectual property rights”

What that says is that LINDEN LAB GRANTS IP. They are the owners of the servers, they control access, and they ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGERE that you can retain “applicable” copyright. You might construe an abstraction that this is somehow inherent in your design process and work of creativity, but it is Lindens *conceding it* and making it possible. That indeed is GRANTING IT.

So stop word-salading here, and realize that Bragg’s lawyers will use just these very types of publications and statements and implied undertakings to mount their case.

And seriously, no IP issues are involved in Bragg. He isn’t claiming them. He has not designs seized by Linden.

>But I like how you sidestepped that lil scenario of me breaking into your house because you had crappy locks. It’s your land, it’s your place, you own the stuff inside, but because I could bypass your locks, I get to take whatever I want and you can’t have anything but what you paid for back in money. Guess there’s no such thing as ‘damages’ in the court of law either, nor is there emotional stress, mental anguish, physical stress, etc. because if there were -GASP- people would have to pay money that they made legally!

This sort of nasty, little piece-of-shit bullying crap — total W-hattery meant to invoke people who stalk me in RL and bully me — is not something I respond to when I realize there is no intellectual debate here, there is only a semi-educated, half-witted “Internet lawyer” trying to shout down someone with warmed over Internetisms.

Like I said, leaving the keys in the car doesn’t mean a car that is taken isn’t stolen. It’s stolen. Like a break-in to a house. I seriously think you have no handle on the law as it is actually practiced. Are you a trial attorney? What law school did you go to? And what state did you pass the bar in?

The recordings were not property, not valued at $1000.

There’s a word for people who write shit like this. It’s called “twat”. I save it for special occasions. This is surely one.

“”"The Lindens provide people with the rights to intellectual property.”"”

There’s no gray area. The Lindens do not do it. Deal with being wrong. Don’t say what I’ve already said as your proof of being right. You just look silly

>No, you’re wrong. Intellectual properties would exist and be recognized as inherent in the real world. This is an artificial world. The default is that all property is the game company’s. Therefore, the sovereign does indeed give out, provide, yield to, authorize the IP. Read the TOS. Read the news stories. And stop being so stupid.

What state did you say you had passed the bar in again?