“Unconscionable!” Court Blasts Linden Terms of Service, Holds that Philip can be target in Bragg Lawsuit.
by Urizenus Sklar on 31/05/07 at 12:54 pm
Yesterday the US District Court for the District of Pennsylvania ruled on two motions by Linden Lab in the case of Bragg vs. Linden Research. One motion had to do with removing Philip Linden as a target of Bragg’s lawsuit. The second issue had to do with Linden Lab’s terms of service, which says that any disputes with Linden Lab must go to arbitration. Here is the skinny: Philip *can* be personally targeted, and the ToS is “unconscionable” for a gazillion reasons (We told you so!) — indeed it is unfair in so many ways it is not even fixable by “bluelining”. In other words, this baby is going to court. But beyond this decision, there was the language of the Court, which suggests that not only does the Court understand the issues, but also that Philip is in a great big shitpile of trouble. Following are some choice passages:
p. 14, regarding specific person jurisdiction
Rosedale’s personal role was to “bait the hook” for potential customers to make more interactive contact with Linden by visiting Second Life’s website. Rosedale’s activity was designed to generate additional traffic inside Second Life. He was the hawker sitting outside Second Life’s circus tent, singing the marvels of what was contained inside to entice customers to enter. Once inside Second Life, participants could view virtual property, read additional materials about purchasing virtual property, interact with other avatars who owned virtual property, and, ultimately, purchase virtual property themselves. Significantly, participants could even interact with Rosedale’s avatar on Second Life during town hall meetings that he held on the topic of virtual property.
That may sound harsh, but think about it. Linden Lab is in the position of (i) telling people that the stuff they buy in Second Life is theirs, but (ii) then turning around and seizing the property. The marketing quotes from Philip are damning:
p. 4:
Defendant Rosedale personally joined in efforts to publicize Lindenâs recognition of rights to virtual property. For example, in 2003, Rosedale stated in a press release made available on Second Life’s website that:“Until now, any content created by users for persistent state worlds, such as Everquest or Star Wars Galaxies , has essentially become the property of the company developing and hosting the world. . . . We believe our new policy recognizes the fact that persistent world users are making significant contributions to building these worlds and should be able to both own the content they create and share in the value that is created. The preservation of users’ property rights is a necessary step toward the
emergence of genuinely real online worlds.”Press Release, Linden Lab, Linden Lab Preserves Real World Intellectual Property Rights of Users of its Second Life Online Services (Nov. 14, 2003). After this initial announcement, Rosedale continued to personally hype the ownership of virtual property on Second Life. In an interview in 2004, for example, Rosedale stated: “The idea of land ownership and the ease with which you can own land and do something with it . . . is intoxicating. . . . Land ownership feels important and tangible. It’s a real piece of the future.” Michael Learmonth, Virtual Real Estate Boom Draws Real Dollars, USA Today, June 3, 2004. Rosedale recently gave an extended interview for Inc. magazine, where he appeared on the cover stating, “What you have in Second Life is real and it is yours. It doesn’t belong to us.”
Philip has placed himself in an impossible position on this one. He is arguing that the Terms of Service agreement say the stuff isn’t really Bragg’s, but meanwhile his marketing spiel is off the hook: “It doesn’t belong to us.” Meanwhile the ToS looks like it is going to crumble like a house of cards under legal scruitiny. The Court argued that it was so unfair and such a mess it wasn’t even fixable. Here are some highlights.
p. 28
The TOS are a contract of adhesion. Linden presents the TOS on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. A potential participant can either click “assent” to the TOS, and then gain entrance to Second Life’s virtual world, or refuse assent and be denied access. Linden also clearly has superior bargaining strength over Bragg. Although Bragg is an experienced attorney, who believes he is expert enough to comment on numerous industry standards and the “rights” or participants in virtual worlds, see Pl.s Resp., Ex. A ¶¶ 59-64, he was never presented with an opportunity to use his experience and lawyering skills to negotiate terms different from the TOS that Linden offered. Moreover, there was no “reasonably available market alternatives [to defeat] a claim of adhesiveness.”
p. 30
Linden buried the TOS’s arbitration provision in a 17 lengthy paragraph under the benign heading “GENERAL PROVISIONS.”
p. 33
Here, the TOS contain many of the same elements that made the PayPal user agreement substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality. The TOS proclaim that “Linden has the right at any time for any reason or no reason to suspend or terminate your Account, terminate this Agreement, and/or refuse any and all current or future use of the Service without notice or liability to you.” TOS ¶ 7.1. Whether or not a customer has breached the Agreement is “determined in Linden’s sole discretion.” Id. Linden also reserves the right to return no money at all based on mere “suspicions of fraud” or other violations of law. Id. Finally, the TOS state that “Linden may amend this Agreement … at any time in its sole discretion by posting the amended Agreement [on its website].” TOS ¶ 1.2.
p. 34
In effect, the TOS provide Linden with a variety of one-sided remedies to resolve disputes, while forcing its customers to arbitrate any disputes with Linden. This is precisely what occurred here. When a dispute arose, Linden exercised its option to use self-help by freezing Bragg’s account, retaining funds that Linden alone determined were subject to dispute, and then telling Bragg that he could resolve the dispute by initiating a costly arbitration process. The TOS expressly authorized Linden to engage in such unilateral conduct. As in Comb, “[f]or all practical purposes, a customer may resolve disputes only after [Linden] has had control of the disputed funds for an indefinite period of time,” and may only resolve those disputes by initiating arbitration. 218 F. Supp. 2d at 1175.Linden’s right to modify the arbitration clause is also significant. “The effect of [Linden's] unilateral right to modify the arbitration clause is that it could . . . craft precisely the sort of asymmetrical arbitration agreement that is prohibited under California law as unconscionable. Net Global Mktg., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 674, at *9. This lack of mutuality supports a finding of substantive unconscionability.
p. 40
Here, neither in its briefing nor at oral argument did Linden even attempt to offer evidence that “business realities” justify the one-sidedness of the dispute resolution scheme that the TOS constructs in Linden’s favor.
You can download the entire Court order here:
Download robreno_order.pdf
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
>Prok, relax about csven please, if Joshua or Cristiano show up we want you to have some energy left for a throwdown with them too.
Um, catch up on the news please, Uri. Due to csven behaving like an outrageous asshole, writing huge, hysterical diatribes against me on Clickable Culture, dragging my RL name into it and making charges against me of failing to report a RL crime of child porn, and due to me *fighting back* after Tony didn’t do anything for several days despite my private plea to him in offlist email, now both csven and me are permabanned from Clickable Culture, and all my posts and his posts are completely destroyed — nuked entierly — with Tony only shrugging and promising maybe a rollback. It’s really despicable, and you know it.
csven pulled that stunt on the more decorous and visible Clickable Culture, which arguably gets more hits than the Herald, because he knew likely Tony would do nothing, being (formerly) a big free speech advocate and busy, and few people comment that much at CC. He doesn’t pull quite the same stunt HERE because he knows that a community of people — including you! — will call him on his bullshit.
So please be aware of those circumstances.
And I have plenty of energy to take on any of these fucktards that come after me, frankly, and they can count on a smackdown.
>3) He honestly believed he was offereing land ownership and that he could take it away at whim and never connected the dots — never saw that he believed P & not-P.
I’m opting for this one. I remember at SLCC, I had such a strenuous discussion with Philip about this that he even palmed me off on Ginsu. I kept telling him that his claims that LL would never take away land and IP, which he indeed was making, were making, were belied by his draconian forums position, in which there was a stated and explicit policy (since eroded) that said that if you were permabanned from the forums, your land and goods would be taken away — really draconian punishment for a speech offense. Philip seemed genuinely unable to connect these dots.
>Whichever is the case, I would think it is the responsibility of the legal department to understand that the marketing claims being put forward by Philip were presenting Second Life as offering genuine ownership and also to see that the ToS was grossly unfair — “unconscionable” in the language of the Court — and would collapse under minimal judicial scrutiny.
Actually, I think that’s why in 2005-2006, Ginsu was put to work strenuously overhauling the TOS, tightening it up to make it sound like other games and EULAs and such all over, and removing just those hazards. That’s why you began to see all that language about the money only being essentially a license to use a game token.
>In any case the legal department *should* have seen that Bragg case was a trap. A lawyer on top of things *would* have said: give the guy his legitimately got stuff back.
Totally.
>But I take your point that its unfair to say the legal department didn’t get Philip’s vision. Philip himself seems ambivalent about it.
Yes. Philip in fact doesn’t *like* land. He owns almost none of it himself, never spends time on it, and prefers things like golf courses or public parks. He constantly talks in meetings or IMs about how land doesn’t mean as much as the content you put on it.
In September 2005, when we met with Philip, he said “Land and wealth are not stakes in this world”. That’s when I internally decided not to go on growing rapidly and endlessly like all the other land businesses. It was completely clear that you couldn’t rely on the Lindens to share a “normal” and “regular” notion of private property as the bulwark of a liberal democratic society. For him, it was content uber alles, and content corporativism was all that mattered, along with a Snowcrash-like elite tekkie class rule.
Anonymous
Jun 1st, 2007
Can we agree that there is no “good guy” in this mess?
The Terms of Service Agreement stinks. We all know it but we suck it up, anyway. We have no recourse if we want to log in. Linden Lab turns a blind eye to the abusive actions of some of their friends, but punishes people who do or say things they disagree with – whether or not the individuals are harming others or the community as a whole. While I hesitate to call Bragg a crook – too much chance of a libel suit there – it is patently obvious that he knowingly followed a path of actions which harmed Linden Lab by fraudulently denying them proper recompense, and other players by fraudulently denying them a fair opportunity to bid on and buy the properties. This one Court is right to find fault with Linden Lab’s chicanery, but they, or another court down the road will give Bragg a smackdown and he could just be risking his Bar membership with this frivolous case as well.
RZ
Jun 1st, 2007
“No judge has ruled that hey, using a URL like that is ok because it was just “creative” or “innocent”.”
This is false. In California, a news reporter modified a URL on Gov. Schwarzennegger’s website and was able to find some audio files that contained some controversial statements by The Governator. A judge ruled this “reverse browsing” (as he called it) was perfectly A-OK and not “hacking” in any sense. If something is on a publicly available server, it’s fair game regardless of whether it’s linked to or not.
Hazim Gazov
Jun 1st, 2007
>>When you can type in a URL and gain a $1000 US product for $0 or $1, that’s theft, pure and simple.<<
O RLY? Try to explain to me how it’s theft. For this “hack”, it doesn’t seem as if he had to do anything other than say “yes, I want to buy this land”. I don’t think he opened the auctions himself. If LL had them listed for $0, no matter where, and he paid the money that was due (none), then it isn’t a question of legality, it’s a question of morality.
Hazim Gazov
Jun 1st, 2007
>>Only before you leave the store, you go through checkout.<<
There was a checkout, only it was a script rather than a person. It’s their own fault if the script doesn’t do its job.
Hazim Gazov
Jun 1st, 2007
>>Yeah, csven, you fucking retarded idiot, we’ve been through this argumentation a million times before on this story. And the checkout in this case is *Linden Lab catching him, removing his land from him, and banning him DUH.* There’s a checkout in THIS story too, DUH.<<
I think it was less like a checkout and more like meeting him outside his house and mugging him.
Hazim Gazov
Jun 1st, 2007
C-C-C-COMBOBREAKER!
>>Linden Lab did not operate their checkout counter, and it was foiled by an exploit. That’s one way to use the analogy, if you must. When someone walks out of the store with a ridiculously low-priced item with the wrong sticker and it’s not caught until later, that’s not a checkout — unless of course it *is* a checkout — as I would maintain–precisely because they DID catch him in the end when they saw their records or got an abuse report.<<
If I look behind two bags of chips and see that one is labeled 30 cents, and then I notice that everything in the back row of every product is only 30 cents, so I buy it, there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not like sneaking into the back room and putting your own labels on them, or just stuffing them in your jacket. He used publicly available information to find a publicly available page. It doesn’t matter that the bag of chips was in the back row, he purchased the land for the listed amount (even if it didn’t show up elsewhere), and that’s that. He didn’t *force* anything, nor did he *exploit* anything. If he exploited it, it would be like screwing around with the register so that everything would be cheaper.
Hazim Gazov
Jun 1st, 2007
Also Prok, your door is ugly, buy a new one or something.
nina
Jun 1st, 2007
all you ppl carrying about how ‘poorly written’ this is realise its a very long in depth legal judgement passed down by the judge? not written by bragg? u realise that yes?
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
I was reading Prokofy’s touching words in the other thread:
“Nor could they be civil in arguing what the boundaries should be”
and then I wondered where in this thread I was being less than civil and who was being a “fucking retarded idiot” and “a raging asshole”.
I didn’t wonder long.
Prokofy is all class, isn’t she Uri?
—
“Uri says: “A lawyer on top of things *would* have said: give the guy his legitimately got stuff back.”
Or, better still, pay the guy off without admitting any liability.”
I’m with both you guys. LL’s actions in this didn’t make much business sense to me either.
ming666
Jun 1st, 2007
hey squids – what did you expect? fraud is fraud is fraud. for any of you web 1.0 oldsters out there – this reminds me of boo.com – lots of vc money to party with for something that at the end of the day has absolutely no relative value.
Dmitri Zelmanov
Jun 1st, 2007
If someone unlocks the front door of your house using a bobby pin instead of a key and grabs your TV, is that theft? What if you forget to lock the door, is it theft if someone opens it and grabs your stereo? How about leaving your door wide open with a blinking sign that say, “there’s no one home”. Is it theft if someone walk in and takes your PC?
The answer in all three cases is Yes.
RZ
Jun 1st, 2007
Dmitri, your examples are completely irrelevant to what actually happened between Bragg and Linden. If you think further, I’m sure you’ll come to a flash of insight as to why that is the case.
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
@Dmitri
The house wasn’t locked. The Lindens didn’t start the auction on their website, but they *did* inform residents of the land auction by way of the SL client map, which color-coded and thus advertised its status to everyone.
And the TV wasn’t just *grabbed*. There was a pink slip with it in the form of the auction number in the “About Land” window.
In order to actually remove the TV, the pink slip had to be signed and approved by both parties.
It was.
None of this means that what was done was beyond reproach. These people should have been aware of the $1000 minimum. But Linden Lab took their money. And where I believe LL is guilty, is in taking their money, grabbing the assets and closing them out (and pointing to their ToS as justification).
-
If I go to a store and see a TV with a blank price tag, and I ballpoint in $1.00, then take it to the register and the store accepts my dollar, then I’d say they at that point have *no* ethical right to run out to my car, grab the TV, keep the money I gave them, and then close off the parking lot so I can’t drive my car out.
And that’s just how I see it; obviously different from you.
No problem. We’ll just let the courts decide.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
and then I wondered where in this thread I was being less than civil and who was being a “fucking retarded idiot” and “a raging asshole”.
I didn’t wonder long.
Prokofy is all class, isn’t she Uri?
uh, csven is a lame fucktard, through and through. He thinks his Eddie Haskell words will ‘stick’ in an isolated thread. Sure, he may not demonstrate *in that thread* be the sheer unadulterated assholery that he exhibits in spades elswhere (in the now conveniently-deleted Clickable Culture).
I’d love to have a panel of experts assemble and read every single thing in the last 2 weeks from csven, my answers on CC, and conclude whether a) Tony was proper in his actions and b) whether in face csven is really an outrageously abusive fucktard, whom I merely calmly responded to. My expression in those threads are decent — unlike his. And calling him a fucktard here, which he is, calling him out as to what his true nature is, whereas I didn’t in politer company, doesn’t change the fact one whit about who was wrong and who was right in the exchange on CC. csven thinks he can bully people he doesn’t like and harass them into the ground with literalism, mendacity, cunning manipulation, and outrageous claims.
Reality
Jun 1st, 2007
1. all department store analogies do not apply to this issue.
2. Linden Lab does not sell ‘land’ at a 1 USD or 1 Linden Price tag – common knowledge.
3. Anyone using any method whatsoever to acquire ‘land’ at a price they know the Lab would never sell it for is cheating the system.
All facts – show tangible evidence otherwise which can be traced right back to the Lab (‘land’ sale wise), otherwise you have nothing.
RZ
Jun 1st, 2007
“3. Anyone using any method whatsoever to acquire ‘land’ at a price they know the Lab would never sell it for is cheating the system.”
The fact that Linden charged Bragg’s credit card and delivered the land to him demonstrates that the land was, by definition, sold for a price Linden would sell it for.
What we have here is a case of “seller’s regret”, in which Linden feels bad about selling the land and tried to get out of the deal they had made with Bragg. Remember, Bragg made an offer to purchase the sim for $300 (or whatever it was), Linden charged the $300 to his card and transferred possession of the land. In that moment, Linden had accepted Bragg’s offer, and the contract was formed. That’s by-the-book contract law.
Reality
Jun 1st, 2007
“The fact that Linden charged Bragg’s credit card and delivered the land to him demonstrates that the land was, by definition, sold for a price Linden would sell it for.”
Credit Card charges by machine are an automatic action. The response by the Lab came after review of the data in the transaction sheets.
Thank you for your attempt to rationalize away a person using an automated system for ill gain – come back when you have evidence showing that the Lab actually lists and sells ‘land’ for less than their stated minimum (automated systems do not count).
marketwatch
Jun 1st, 2007
“A lawyer on top of things *would* have said: give the guy his legitimately got stuff back.”
That’s an absolutely fair point, but the lawyer(s) may well have offered such advice. We probably won’t ever know. In the end, lawyers are employees hired by the company, and they do both: give advice and execute legal representation based upon the circumstance given to them and desired by the client, which especially rings true in defense cases. If it was the CEO’s unrelenting position that the company did have that authority (and rejecting counsel’s advice), the lawyer as a matter of duty would execute his or her role as counsel and do the best job to be done arguing for that position. That’s what they’re hired to do after all. I’m guessing there’s probably also no shortage of lawyers eager to take any legal position that a company with big pockets wishes to make, in California, Pennsylvania, or wherever.
Whatever the case, I think that hardly anybody at this point would indeed argue with “ambivalence”, perhaps not even just the CEO, but what I could only characterize as “factions” within the company (I’m sure that’s not news to anyone reading this). I honestly don’t know if the CEO is directing much of anything there, with different employees within the company instituting policy changes that contradict previous policies (and claiming they were always policies, re:”broadly offensive” content for example) and which themselves contradict their own website, previous policies stated by other employees, and even contradict themselves… different employees having different definitions of terms like “ageplay” and even the definition of “main grid” of all things… multi-part self contradictory TOS and public statements..
I don’t want to sound *too* brazen here, but it seems to me that this entire company is one GIGANTIC MANAGERIAL MESS (and I think we know where the buck stops for that).
For all of this type of confusion, inconsistency, and lack of awareness to extend even to the company counsel would *really* be something.
RZ
Jun 1st, 2007
“Thank you for your attempt to rationalize away a person using an automated system for ill gain – come back when you have evidence showing that the Lab actually lists and sells ‘land’ for less than their stated minimum (automated systems do not count).”
Res ipse loquitur — the thing speaks for itself. The fact that Linden listed land for auction with a reserve (i.e. minimum bid) of $0 on a public web page, and completed a transaction with Bragg when he offered to buy land for less than some minimum stated elsewhere (never heard of “lowballing” someone?), means that Linden *would* sell land for less than their stated minimum.
I stand by my assertion that this is simply a case of Linden feeling stupid that they could have sold something for a better price than they accepted in the first place, and trying to rationalize their actions.
Reality
Jun 1st, 2007
RZ – the web page was not made public, it was manually entered. The web page in question is part of an automated system which goes through a set number of auctions and ‘activates’ (sets the posted minimum, which is not a price of zero) and then lists it in the main page which everyone can see using standard navigation.
Now granted, the auction is already active the moment it is entered into the system – as is shown by the fact that the system accepted the amount entered in via a manual URL entry, which accessed the ‘land’ out of turn … The fact still stands that the system was tricked in a manner which bypassed one of the steps, and yes apparently a step that was not coded to be mandatory.
Now then – all of that said? Your version is just as plausible. I am simply going by stated fact and logic, not supposition on the part of the Lab’s motives.
RZ
Jun 1st, 2007
“the web page was not made public, it was manually entered.”
A URL on a system that can be accessed by anyone is public by definition. Whether there is a link pointing to the URL, or it is entered manually makes absolutely no difference. As I posted above, besides being common sense, there is a California court ruling to this effect — if you can enter a URL by hand to access a page on a server, it is considered publicly accessible.
Consider this, if you see a company’s second quarter financial results on their web site at http://www.xyz.com/Q2_07_results.html, would it *really* be considered hacking or inappropriate in the least to try to find their Q1 results by changing the ’2′ to a ’1′ in the URL?
Reality
Jun 1st, 2007
RZ, frankly I could care less what a court ruling on the matter of manually entered URLs has to say, courts are notorious for not following logic. If you cannot access it by any means available to anyone else viewing the web page (if it is not something linked up or otherwise accessible via hyper link) then logic dictates that you are not supposed to have access to the content contained therein.
In your example to attempt to justify your own mode of thinking as described in your post response …. You have failed to state if the data for the first quarter is currently linked into the web page elsewhere. If it is not accessible except by altering the URL – then you do not have permission to view said results, ability to view them at all or not.
The above section of my response aside – your cited example is not the same as what has gone on to cause this case, which should have been thrown out of the courts at the beginning.
Secure or not …. Bragg circumvented the normal operation of the system in such a manner which worked to his benefit.
Oh – and so you know, I said nothing about ‘hacking’. There are ways to circumvent systems like that without resorting to anything like ‘hacking’ at all, as Bragg has shown.
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“2. Linden Lab does not sell ‘land’ at a 1 USD or 1 Linden Price tag – common knowledge.”
I’m taking into account a couple of things that disputes this assertion:
a) mainland auctions – both full sims AND new land parcels – did not *always* have a minimum starting bid afaik. I want to say the change to a minimum occurred sometime in the Fall of 2005, but I’m unsure. I’d be happy to have someone correct me on this, as I only participated in one auction back then and could be wrong. If that’s the case though, then arguments for “common knowledge” are less valid afaic.
b) around the time this occurred, the Land Store was only weeks old (hence the bugs) and many details of its operation were *not* common knowledge. In fact, even among the SL forum regulars – arguably the most well-informed people – there seemed to me to be plenty of confusion. Worth keeping in mind that the Land Store was announced in something like March 2006 and this case originated from events occurring sometime around early May 2006. That’s *weeks*. Not much time to establish “common knowledge” among the user base afaic.
So… *should* people purchasing sims have known there was a $1000 minimum? Sure. And people throwing around significant chunks of cash IRL should know what a variable interest rate loan is too, but look at the problems spreading across the U.S.
Do I believe all residents actually *knew* there was a minimum. No. I think it’s entirely plausible that some people were told about this Big Opportunity and jumped in without doing any research. No surprise to me. And a few SL forum threads by such individuals who got notices from LL indicates as much.
Do I believe Bragg was one of them. No. But then if Linden Lab was taking his money as well as those of those who likely *didn’t* know better, for whatever reason, they were validating the activity of all of them and bear some responsibility for the mess.
Consequently I believe both parties are at fault.
The core problem imo is that the ToS gave Linden Lab unfair advantage in resolving the situation.
They *could* have taken his virtual assets, refunded his relatively small amount of money, and told him he had 24 hours of access to get *his* IP out of Second Life and would then be banned. They didn’t do that. They treated him as if this was ALL his fault and took his money. I think that’s unfair given the situation.
Now the court is so far saying that the ToS – which allowed Linden Lab to do as they please without due consideration for their own role in this mess – is a piece of legal crap. And by doing that, they seem to be siding with the way I and others see this. For now at least.
We’ll see. We might both be surprised in the end.
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“…whom I merely calmly responded to”
Proof Prokofy has a sense of humor! Who would have guessed? Awesome.
Hazim Gazov
Jun 1st, 2007
Jesus fucking christ Prokofy, get a clue and stick to the topic, or get the fuck out. Actually, both of you, kthx.
Kahni Poitier
Jun 1st, 2007
I love listening to people try and rationalize the cheating.
It’s called an EXPLOIT, and should be a bannable offense.
Take the land back, but give Bragg his money back.
And then FIX THE DAMNED SYSTEM SO THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN AGAIN!
(and ban the land-bots!)
VTOR - Virtual TO Reality
Jun 1st, 2007
Court Ruling Should We?
Yesterday all across the blogdom were post involving a Pennsylvania court ruling involving Linden Lab, particularly Philip Rosedale, in early legal maneuvers.
Tim Faulkners, of Valleywag, opening sentence was Second Life may…
Ordinal Malaprop
Jun 1st, 2007
I’m looking at this ruling now in the context of the recent threats by LL to ban residents (and thus also confiscate their property) on the basis of them contravening morality legislation which was not in force at the time that they signed up. I have to say that this may turn out to be a serious challenge to the new policy. Not that that means I think any better of Bragg of course but this is about more than him.
Nacon
Jun 1st, 2007
Prok said “In September 2005, when we met with Philip, he said “Land and wealth are not stakes in this world”.”
Duh, he’s the Creator of SL, he can just go anywhere do what he want in SL. Did you just lost your balls?
Clearly proven that Prok wants the exploiter to win the case against LL…. WHOM by the way, is letting Prok have a fair system with her own land rental. Doesn’t make any sense, doesn’t it?
Form other report, Prok said “I totally have ceased to buy this stuff about how they have to keep a low profile on these heists and hacks.”
So you were into it before? What did you steal then?
Prok said “csven thinks he can bully people he doesn’t like and harass them into the ground with literalism, mendacity, cunning manipulation, and outrageous claims.”
I like the way how you had to write in a full descriptive info based on your view, sounds like you have a bigger grudges against him. Which means Csven is on the right track there.
Prok said “Due to csven behaving like an outrageous asshole, writing huge, hysterical diatribes against me on Clickable Culture, dragging my RL name into it and making charges against me of failing to report a RL crime of child porn”
Actually… if I had known your real name, I would too, report a crime to fellow law officer. Check your law, Prok. Child porn is not funny. Crime bystander is also not funny.
A lot of people hates you for a reason, but many don’t gives a shit. How much more proof you need?
Oh wait… This is about Bragg vs Linden…. not Prok vs Csven. wtf bitch? Get on with the program.
Kahni Poitier
Jun 1st, 2007
Take it to IM’s, you two…
Kryss Wanweird
Jun 1st, 2007
It made me very uncomfortable to see a SLH reporter/employee/whatever make personal attacks to a reader/customer/csven.
bryan campen
Jun 1st, 2007
“I’m not surprised that LL’s legal team aren’t exactly top-notch: they’re dealing with issues for which there’s no real case law.”
that is *exactly* when there should be a top notch legal team in place, when half your legal troubles have no set precedent, and could end up as neat legal experiments, eventually, for some federal court.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
>Prok said “In September 2005, when we met with Philip, he said “Land and wealth are not stakes in this world”.”
Duh, he’s the Creator of SL, he can just go anywhere do what he want in SL. Did you just lost your balls?
And we pay the tier, 80 percent of his bottom line? So we do have stake, and stake he needs to recognize.
>Clearly proven that Prok wants the exploiter to win the case against LL…. WHOM by the way, is letting Prok have a fair system with her own land rental. Doesn’t make any sense, doesn’t it?
Rolls eyes. I surely don’t want Bragg to win, and have consistently, over and over, in every thread and blog on this topic, written assiduously to explain that Bragg used an exploit and stole land, and had a hot sim or sims that he sold, full stop. There is a narrow point that people like Uri make much of, that I find pedantic, even if correct, about the company not having the right to confiscate EVERYTHING from him — but I wonder if in the end that case will be won. It’s a bad case, from which no good law will be made.
Look, it’s very simple, Uri: if you have to steal virtual land to prove its real, what kind of world is THAT?
>Form other report, Prok said “I totally have ceased to buy this stuff about how they have to keep a low profile on these heists and hacks.”
So you were into it before? What did you steal then?
Huh? this makes no sense. I haven’t stolen anything.
>Prok said “csven thinks he can bully people he doesn’t like and harass them into the ground with literalism, mendacity, cunning manipulation, and outrageous claims.”
I like the way how you had to write in a full descriptive info based on your view, sounds like you have a bigger grudges against him. Which means Csven is on the right track there.
I’m calling csven on his outrageous behaviour for days, across at least 3 blogs, that have to do with his apologia for pedophilia. It’s atrocious.
>Prok said “Due to csven behaving like an outrageous asshole, writing huge, hysterical diatribes against me on Clickable Culture, dragging my RL name into it and making charges against me of failing to report a RL crime of child porn”
Actually… if I had known your real name, I would too, report a crime to fellow law officer. Check your law, Prok. Child porn is not funny. Crime bystander is also not funny.
I’m not anyone who says child porn is funny? In fact I think it’s SO not funny that I think the SIMULATION of it is WRONG TOO. Hello?
I’m not a “crime bystander,” I’m a reporter who has, as Hamlet very accurately put it, a single-source, dubious, unchecked story, with no pictures, and no proof. Most media outlets I’ve ever worked for demanded two sources at least.
>A lot of people hates you for a reason, but many don’t gives a shit. How much more proof you need?
Who cares?
>Oh wait… This is about Bragg vs Linden…. not Prok vs Csven. wtf bitch? Get on with the program.
csven is justifying the crime of Bragg, must as he justifies the criminality of virtual pedophilia. Figures.
Prokofy Neva
Jun 1st, 2007
>It made me very uncomfortable to see a SLH reporter/employee/whatever make personal attacks to a reader/customer/csven.
Shield your eyes, dear reader. That’s how it is at the Herald. csven is no mere “reader” or “customer” but a public menace trying to ruin a reporter’s reputation with false allegations. I fight back REALLY HARD with shit like that.
csven
Jun 1st, 2007
“I’m not a “crime bystander,” I’m a reporter who has, as Hamlet very accurately put it, a single-source, dubious, unchecked story, with no pictures, and no proof. Most media outlets I’ve ever worked for demanded two sources at least.”
Except “responsible” journalists don’t just throw up their hands, give up and “forget”; they get that second source. Don’t you think the children deserve that much?
-
“csven is justifying the crime of Bragg”
No. I’m not. As I’ve already stated – I’m saying that I believe both parties bear some fault. And it’s looking like the judge may agree.
Kahni Poitier
Jun 1st, 2007
Is there any way to block messages from the two of you so those of us interested IN THE FUCKING TOPIC can read it?
I don’t care what you call each other on other blogs.
Prok, you’re a damned whiner. I’ve never seen a post where you don’t. Shut it.
Take your damned insult-fests to e-mail or something.
Conscionable
Jun 2nd, 2007
Prokovy Neva, the case has ALREADY BEEN WON for many residents… though perhaps once things are settled, appeals are done, even perhaps after a clear resolution of the entire Bragg case (if it makes a ruling on “virtual” property which may or may not happen)…as of right now,
Everybody:
THE ****ENTIRE**** SECOND LIFE TERMS OF SERVICE AS EVERYONE “AGREED” TO TODAY HAS BEEN DECLARED ILLEGAL UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW AND UNENFORCEABLE IN COURT.
Such passages like those claiming to allow Linden Labs to terminate accounts for “any reason or no reason” were SPECIFICALLY cited as reasons for substantive unconscionability and lacking mutuality.
*IF ANYONE THINKS LINDEN LABS CAN ENFORCE ARBITRARY, VAGUE, INCONSISTENT RULES ON YOU AND TERMINATE YOUR ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF THEM, AND THAT’S JUST YOUR TOUGH LUCK, YOU MAY BE WRONG.
*IF ANYONE HERE THINKS YOUR $L HAS NO VALUE AND YOUR LINDEN DOLLARS AND VIRTUAL ASSETS GO MISSING BECAUSE OF SOFTWARE BUGS OR COMPANY NEGLIGENCE AND NOTHING IS OWED BACK TO YOU, YOU MAY BE WRONG.
This federal court has ruled that Linden Labs clearly had NO interest in fairness when it drafted its Terms of Service. If you take a dispute to a real world court, however, they WILL have an interest in fairness.
Companies uninterested in fairness will just push at you and push at you and won’t stop until you push back, not just with rhetoric, but with real world lawsuits. Some will only do as little token “fairness” as possible to give the appearance of equitable interest, and they only shape up and fold over after being forced to in the face of genuine civil and class-action lawsuits.
Which kind of company will Linden Labs be when the lawyers come knocking?
Prokofy Neva
Jun 2nd, 2007
>Except “responsible” journalists don’t just throw up their hands, give up and “forget”; they get that second source. Don’t you think the children deserve that much?
I think adults deserve due process and the rule of law just as much as children, and if I don’t have evidence to bring charges and a serious complaint, I don’t start vengeful witchhunts, no.
Meanwhile, anyone who REALLY cares about children should care about this worm csven’s really creepy approval of sickening simulated child porn, that’s what we *can* and *should* grapple with in SL where we can get at it.
I personally don’t wish to go on zealous and crazed crusades, as I don’t think it’s effective, and has no credibility. I think my blog post on this subject was thoughtful and persuasive, and it says it all in the title: THE PEDOPHILES ARE RESPONSIBLE.
THE PEDOPHILES ARE RESPONSIBLE. Not me. Not the Lindens. THE PEDOPHILES ARE RESPONSIBLE.
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/05/the_pedophiles_.html
And what contributes to their sick hold on the Internet and this nauseating industry? Their ability to marshal supporters like csven in their defense in Second Life; their ability to get apologists like csven to declare anything virtual they do as “merely pixels” and just “write it off”. Yes, that’s what we’ve learned from all this, that the support networks of these people are really tenacious and virulent, and they’ll stoop to the lowest kind of smearing of reporters in order to silence their criticism — and their linkage of RL and SL porn or Internet activity in chat rooms.
Yes, this story of last year shows, from all indication, the CONNECTION between RL and SL child pornography, yet csven remains blind to it.
>”csven is justifying the crime of Bragg”
>No. I’m not. As I’ve already stated – I’m saying that I believe both parties bear some fault. And it’s looking like the judge may agree.
The judge has not agreed that Bragg didn’t commit a crime. He’s merely looking at the more narrow issue of whether the punishment was excessive.
Kahni Poitier
Jun 2nd, 2007
Prok, what the FUCK does that have to do with the Bragg case?
How about keeping your pedo-fixation to the right topic, hrm?
I’ve never met you, in or out of world, and I already want to beat you to death with a baseball bat. But that’d be against the new ToS, I guess.
Quit your damned whining.
Reality
Jun 2nd, 2007
That’s funny, I could have sworn there were two posts on Prokofy’s blog by me – one citing that the use of real life information by any party once it is given freely to a news source is quite common these days and doesn’t require permission. The post then went on to state that tabloid rags were the worst offenders and that, despite all of this ….. I myself really do not condone such things to be used for malice.
Both the post and addendum are now missing – imagine that! Guess some people care more about the messenger than the message.
Sad really that a person can be so adamant about their own ability to post anywhere they’d like under a name that does not exist in any birth record in any hospital …. and yet when it comes to people citing their own opinions and for that matter the way the world actually works for others to see …. why, those posts suddenly disappear with no warning whatsoever …. not even so much as a reason why (a real reason – such as inappropriate language or the making of dire threats as a promise).
NobodyImportant
Jun 2nd, 2007
Reality, what do you expect from Crazy Cat Lady (AKA Prokofy Neva)?
If you disagree with her opinion, and he has the power to remove your statements, it will.
Don’t dare use logic on her blog, and never disagree with him – everything appearing there must suit its rose-coloured view of the metaverse. Anything otherwise is a personal attack against Prokofy, and she/he/it will reduce her/him/itself to twisting your words to appear as a personal attack.
At least, that’s what I’ve seen happen.
I’m just calling it as I see it.
(And now we wait for Prokofy to insult me and try to claim that I was making a personal attack by stating things as I see them, not to mention as I’ve experienced them.)
Anonymous
Jun 2nd, 2007
>I think adults deserve due process and the rule of law
guess Germans and Bragg don’t count
Kryss Wanweird
Jun 2nd, 2007
>Shield your eyes, dear reader. That’s how it is at the Herald. csven is no >mere “reader” or “customer” but a public menace trying to ruin a reporter’s reputation >with false allegations. I fight back REALLY HARD with shit like that.
Oh sorry, Prok. I didn’t realize you owned the SLH until this post.
I apoligize for my ignorance.
Anonymous
Jun 2nd, 2007
Prok said “>Form other report, Prok said “I totally have ceased to buy this stuff about how they have to keep a low profile on these heists and hacks.”
So you were into it before? What did you steal then?
Huh? this makes no sense. I haven’t stolen anything.”
Of course it does make sense… “ceased” means stop…. not “never did”. Therefore you were stealing something.
What did you steal?
Prok said “I’m not a “crime bystander,” I’m a reporter who has, as Hamlet very accurately put it”
Uh huh… sure, you’re still a crime bystander, a thief and an idiot too.
Reality
Jun 2nd, 2007
Nobody, I’m fully aware of Prokofy’s nature. The post was put up with a subtle hint of sarcasm to the ‘surprise’ of having relevant material removed without any logical reasoning, in addition to using one of Prokofy’s favored tactics: Putting on public record the fact that she only gives lip service to her own morals and scruples and frankly only cares about her own ‘right’ to post where she pleases, under a name which exists nowhere in any United States or other registry – linked to her real identity or not, Prokofy Neva does not exist in the real world.
Pardon the length of the response.
Joshua Nightshade
Jun 2nd, 2007
There’re a lot of comments so I might be repeating myself:
Bragg purchased several sims through the web auction by randomly guessing at URLs until he found several that were active links to not-publicly available sims.
I don’t get why the “Bragg haters” keep trying to position it as if he hacked into the website database, uploaded his own auction software, and exploited it that way. He guessed at URLs the same way if someone sends me mypic.com/images/mypic1.jpg I’ll see if mypic2.jpg and mypic3.jpg works.
Sure it wasn’t the intended use of the system, but it isn’t as if he hacked anything. He took advantage of a loophole that LL themselves left open and vulnerable.
I can agree with them taking the sims back, maybe even banning him, but they seized EVERYTHING.
More to the point, V5 had 50-odd members, many of whom were landowners and content creators, banned and their island seized. They never were compensated for that. I was banned for two weeks in-world because of a ridiculously demure post I made about Strife on the forum. Others have received similar punishments. They have on many occasions flexed their right to suspend and ban people with no recourse beyond their opaque “support@lindenlab.com” email void.
I find this very interesting and I always thought their ToS was completely at odds with their marketing gimmick. It’s one thing to say the Linden holds no value but they make that difficult to argue when they’ve built a complete system for facilitating between L$ and USD$.
I think they’ve opened themselves up to the possibility of a class-action lawsuit from a number of wrongly banned (or not even wrongly) residents who lost assets because of LL. I find this stuff very, very interesting.
Nonymouse
Jun 3rd, 2007
Boy, this is shaping up to be interesting. I was, deep down, hoping for my Second Life to be a restart, where I could make my life over financially, free of the burdens health has placed on me in First Life. But something always made me hold back. If real assets, however small, can exist in Second Life, I would finally be interested in trying to make money there. I’ve been there over two years and haven’t tried yet – things never seemed stable. I will be watching this all very carefully.
Nonymouse
Jun 3rd, 2007
Oh, and to Joshua – I think what happened to you, with the forum banning, was awful.
csven
Jun 3rd, 2007
I wish someone would steal this land: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8686061@N06/528503867/