Loki Clifton: The Lab Was Not Respecting The Deal We Made

by Pixeleen Mistral on 26/04/10 at 2:57 am

Loki Clifton’s Second Life consulting business is in trouble. Until Wednesday, Loki was a gold level solutions provider for Linden Lab, the makers of Second Life. But according to Mr. Clifton, despite months of negotiations and an agreement to expand Woodbury University’s Second Life presence, everything suddenly changed Tuesday when the Lindens abruptly terminated accounts for players associated with the Woodbury University group and deleted their virtual land holdings.

What went wrong? According to Loki, “the fact is the Lab was not respecting the deal we made”. He went on to say “companies I have had long contracts with and where I was making most of my money have terminated my contract”.

Linden Lab has long partnered with 3rd party consultants who help customers create Second Life experiences, but after stripping Mr. Clifton of his solutions provider status, his customers have begun heading for the exists, concerned that he was acting as an intermediary between Woodbury University and Linden Lab after the Lindens had begun systematically deleting all Woodbury artifacts from the virtual world.

I spoke with Loki by phone as he travelled to Burbank, CA to meet with his remaining client – Woodbury – and he provided a chronology of the relationship.

In November, Linden Lab was considering terminating the Woodbury group in Second Life, but after Loki met with the Woodbury group in early December and described to Glenn Linden their plans to expand their virtual land holdings to create an educational environment that engaged the Second Life community at large, the Lab’s attitude changed. Glenn – the lead of the Lab’s solutions provider group was enthusiastic, particularly because Loki was involved in the project and he was encouraged to proceed.

During the January to March timeframe, a series of meetings were held with Jack, Cyn, and Glenn Linden to work out what the Linden’s legal team needed. Apparently there were concerns that “Woodbury” could not be used as the brand name of the effort because some in Linden Lab felt the name was synonymous with “griefing” or annoying other players in the game. According to Mr. Clifton this issue had been worked through and there was a plan in place to rebrand the venture.

The venture was to be ambitious – a dozen linked regions were to be created, some with access limited to members of the Woodbury group, others to be public where stores and musical events would be held. Mr. Clifton was to continue to act as a conduit between the Woodbury group and Linden Lab to help smooth out a troubled relationship that had developed around the deletion of the original Woodbury University Second Life island in July 2007.

But trouble began to develop as staffing changes inside Linden Lab resulted in first Jack Linden, then Jeska Linden becoming Loki’s contact for Woodbury issues. Loki had already placed orders for new sims about 10 days earlier when George Linden scheduled a meeting for 2:00 PM Tuesday. Loki said he had jokingly asked George if there was anything to be concerned about, but he was reassured that there was no problem.

Tuesday morning however, there were serious problems.

Loki had “about 50 messages” in his inbox stating that all of the current Woodbury sims were offline, and his attempts to place trouble tickets with Linden Lab to bring the sims back online were fruitless. Loki was no longer listed as an alternate for Jordan Bellino and Edward Clift of Woodbury because their accounts had been banned from Second Life. Loki had previously negotiated an expedite immediately status for tickets for the Woodbury sims along with the ability for both Bellino and Clift to file expedited tickets. This was now all out the window.  Linden Lab had decided to delete Woodbury from their virtual world for the second time in three years – despite the potential cost in bad publicity and a looming class action lawsuit filed against Linden Lab the previous week for uncompensated deletion of virtual land.

As news of the deletion spread, Loki attempted to find out why the accounts and virtual assets of his customer had been removed. According to Mr. Clifton, Linden Lab staff would not comment citing “privacy policies”.

Loki told me that the suddenness of the move to remove Woodbury surprised him — when he took on Woodbury as a customer, he had no idea the heavy price in political capital and reputation he would pay. And so as Loki boarded a train to Burbank to meet with his customer the question of why Linden Lab has again deleted Woodbury remains unanswered.

100 Responses to “Loki Clifton: The Lab Was Not Respecting The Deal We Made”

  1. Observing, nothing more

    Apr 27th, 2010

    “You see now comes a new wave. Whilst WU and related sims was there, everyone (how was interested) knew where to find them. ”

    “I think LL should think about increasing their RESI team. Because a lot of clever bored people will lead to one thing.”

    “This time though LL better hope all the people who they upset over the past few months don’t join together.”

    “A few waves of lolcubes on help island will be the least of their worries.”

    “Even then, stopping waves of people who are actually wetting them selves watching sims go up and down and probably worse, will be a difficult task.”

    “So now its time to play and have something which is against LL tyrannical rule – FUN.”

    ~ All above, quoted directly from an earlier comment by Tux Winkler.

    While he’s defended Woobury on earlier occasions, and above again in comments, how it was anything BUT a griefing group.

    So I guess they’re only JUST NOW gonna turn griefer *AFTER* LL has banned the lot?


  2. J

    Apr 27th, 2010

    “LL owes everyone exactly NOTHING. No explanation, no refunds”

    Do they really? Selling “virtual land” for real money. Selling “virtual currency” for real money. Assuring you that you own the stuff that you make. Then closing your account and denying you access to all the assets you’ve bought/made for no reason AND with no warning. I think this looks like a fraudulent scheme that might be illegal in several countries. Much like a pyramid scheme. You have a reasonable expectation that the company honor their contract and deliver what you’ve bought. What their ridiculous “terms of service” says is not really relevant if the content is in itself legally dubious, which is likely is.

  3. Tux Winkler

    Apr 27th, 2010

    @ Observing
    “While he’s defended Woobury on earlier occasions, and above again in comments, how it was anything BUT a griefing group.”
    - Everyone I met and/or was friends with definitely was not a griefer.

    “So I guess they’re only JUST NOW gonna turn griefer *AFTER* LL has banned the lot? ”
    - I didn’t say they was ‘gonna’ (or going to) turn griefer, I think the number of new comers wishing to tread the path and be labled griefers will increase.
    - I think none of WU will grief because they have legal action against the Lab.

  4. Gundel Gaukelei

    Apr 27th, 2010

    @J : Assuring you that you own the stuff that you make. Then closing your account and denying you access to all the assets you’ve bought/made for no reason AND with no warning.

    Not getting owned in a nutshell, Rule #1: read the fscking fine print!

    Exactly which part of “for any or no reason” has been unclear to you?

    Fact: Everyone doing business with LL signed an adhesion contract.

    In other news: playing russian roulette considered harmful

  5. V

    Apr 27th, 2010

    “LL owes everyone exactly NOTHING. No explanation, no refunds”



    Hell Mary, we’re CUSTOMERS! We PAY for their services, with teh moneyz! Why on earth do they owe nothing?

  6. David McNaughten

    Apr 27th, 2010

    Not even close, Winkler.

    Hey, was that Tuxette Magic I shagged a month ago at Bukkake Bliss? I notice she’s no longer partnered to you.

    So did she dump you, or did you dump her?

  7. IntLibber Brautigan

    Apr 27th, 2010

    I should refer you to the well established right of revolution:

    Martin Luther King even said it is a duty to resist unjust laws.

    I personally, being a resident of the State of New Hampshire, enjoy the following in my state constitution’s clause about the right of revolution: “The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

    Given the clear and present danger that continued Linden tyranny poses to the good and happiness of all avatar kind, to the rights, privileges, peace, and repose of all residents of Second Life, it is clear that with Woodbury’s prior turning of many to peaceful and nonviolent activities has been met with spite, aggression, and confiscation, that Linden Research and its staff has aggressed one time too many, that the members of the Woodbury University group have been victimized by tyranny one too many times, and have earned the right to revolt against the arbitrary power and oppression of Linden tyranny.

  8. J

    Apr 27th, 2010

    @Gundel Gaukelei:

    No one ever reads the fine print. If the contents of the fine print is illegal in itself, it doesn’t matter. It has been established in many cases and in many countries that customers are not necessarily bound by these fine prints, the contents of which are often outrageous, dubious at best. Many European countries have consumer protection laws which would render such terms null and void. Many of these laws also apply to goods and services bought from foreign countries. Linden Lab is offering their service over the Internet to customers in other countries and are bound by national legislation in these countries.

    Yes, in several countries Linden Lab and their Second Life service could easily be considered a fraudulent service, if they sell people “virtual currency” for real money and subsequently refuses to honor their contract. No, I was not warned that they could confiscate my virtual currency when I bought it. The small print when I signed up is not sufficient by European legal standards.

    Enforcing European consumer protection law is a different matter, but it could certainly harm their reputation.

  9. Danziel Lane

    Apr 27th, 2010

    Hmmm ….
    It’s all about griefers again.

    Are griefers that important?

    The worst a griefer or a griefer group can do to me is to make me relog or to restart my sim. Maybe they can use my land to perform illegal acts or promotions.

    But really …
    Does it make sense to make this behaviour of people the biggest problem of my life? Is there nothing else to do in life than to focus griefers?

    Maybe I am personally not that much annoyed about griefers, cause I have to deal with RL griefers every day and learnt NOT to give them the attention they long for. All they want it that you notice them, talk about them, whine about them. That makes them happy.

    IF the Woodbury group WERE griefers, they now get the attention they long for.

    It’s all about griefers … but it should be about business partnership.

    So, why I say “Hmmmm…..”:

    - Isn’t Woodbury a RL university? And how comes that the people that pay for that university allow their name to be used as a synomym to griefing for months and years?
    - How comes that a RL university is punished for the behaviour of some student or even for people having no connection to them but the SL group?
    - How can it be, that a gold service provider, which means a business partner, is kicked off, for no other reason but having served one unwanted customer … and so losing all other of their customers too? This simply makes no sense to me, cause it would mean that LL is not interested in a partnership that also takes the risk to deal with not so easy customers? Are there too many untold parts of this story?
    - What I also don’t understand: a RL university is kicked from SL plus a gold service provider is kicked, which is a real bad signal to any business organisation interested to join SL … but the reaction of LL is as if it would not have happened…

    I would really like to hear more about the consequences of stories like this for people that want to find business partners for SL that a discussion about if the group or some members of the group were griefers.

    Cause griefers are just attention seeking people.
    Any business should be able to deal with them.
    Without making it the best visible part of their customer service.

  10. Judge Joker

    Apr 27th, 2010

    @David McNaughten

    “Hey, was that Tuxette Magic I shagged a month ago at Bukkake Bliss? I notice she’s no longer partnered to you.”

    With a name like that I would have thought you didn’t have the prim package capable of such an act.

    Ironically have you checked the meaning of your last name?


    U.K. ruling on plea of legal insanity: in English law, a legal ruling establishing that a defense of insanity depends on proving that the defendant was unaware or unable to understand that wrong was being done.


  11. Gundel Gaukelei

    Apr 27th, 2010

    @J: No one ever reads the fine print.

    Wrong. I do, always. Its the majority that doesn’t.

    You are right in that some major parts of the SL TOS would mostly serve humorous purposes in my country.

    But thats not what I tried to tell you. LL openly told everyone in the TOS: we are not to trust. Because no trustworthy entity would either even think about presenting you a clause like that. Its a confession of malicious intent.

    It doesn’t matter if you may be able to extent your game of russian roulette to a court room. So no tears of condolence to Mr. Clifton and everyone else who lost money there. Because each single one of them could have know (and I bet they did and decited to venture).

  12. billy

    Apr 27th, 2010

    @Judge Joker
    encarta is not as precise as wiki, heres the overview of the law.
    i’d post the whole thing but theres a slight limit to how much bullshit can be posted :D

    The M’Naghten Rules
    The House Of Lords, having deliberated, delivered the following exposition of the Rules:

    the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
    The central issue of this definition may be stated as “did the defendant know what he was doing, or, if so, that it was wrong?”, and the issues raised have been analysed in subsequent appellate decisions:

    [edit] Presumption of sanity and burden of proof
    Sanity is a rebuttable presumption and the burden of proof is on the party relying upon it; the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, that is to say that mental incapacity is more likely than unlikely. If this burden is successfully discharged, the party relying upon it is entitled to succeed. In Lord Denning’s judgement in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland 1963 AC 386, whenever the defendant makes an issue of his state of mind, the prosecution can adduce evidence of insanity. However, this will normally only arise to negate the defence case when automatism or diminished responsibility is in issue. In practical terms, the defence will be more likely to raise the issue of mental incapacity to negate or minimise criminal liability. In R v Clarke 1972 1 All E R 219 a defendant charged with a minor theft (shoplifting) claimed she had no mens rea because she had absent-mindedly walked out of the shop without paying because she suffered from depression. When the prosecution attempted to adduce evidence that this constituted insanity within the Rules, she changed her plea to guilty but on appeal, the Court ruled that she had been merely denying mens rea rather than raising a defence under the Rules and her conviction was quashed. The general rule was stated that the Rules only apply to cases in which the defect of reason is substantial.

    [edit] Disease of the mind
    Whether a particular condition amounts to a disease of the mind within the Rules is not a medical but a legal question to be decided in accordance with the ordinary rules of interpretation. It seems that any disease which produces a malfunctioning of the mind is a disease of the mind and need not be a disease of the brain itself. The term has been held to cover numerous conditions:

    R v Kemp 1957 1 QB 399: arteriosclerosis or a hardening of the arteries caused loss of control during which the defendant attacked his wife with a hammer. This was an internal condition and a disease of the mind.
    R v Sullivan 1984) AC 156 during an epileptic episode, the defendant caused grievous bodily harm: epilepsy was an internal condition and a disease of the mind, and the fact that the state was transitory was irrelevant.
    R v Quick & Paddison 1973 3 AER 397 a diabetic committed an assault while in a state of hypoglycaemia caused by the insulin he had taken, the alcohol he had consumed and not eating. Since the immediate condition was caused by external factors, it was not caused by a disease of the mind. Automatism was not available either because the loss of control was foreseeable.
    R v Hennessy 1989) 1 WLR 287 a diabetic stole a car and drove it while suffering from a mild attack of hyperglycaemia caused by stress and a failure to take his insulin. Lane LCJ said at 294
    In our judgment, stress, anxiety and depression can no doubt be the result of the operation of external factors, but they are not, it seems to us, in themselves separately or together external factors of the kind capable in law of causing or contributing to a state of automatism. They constitute a state of mind which is prone to recur. They lack the feature of novelty or accident, which is the basis of the distinction drawn by Lord Diplock in R v Sullivan 1984 AC 156, 172. It is contrary to the observations of Devlin J., to which we have just referred in Hill v Baxter 1958) 1 QB 277, 285. It does not, in our judgment, come within the scope of the exception of some external physical factor such as a blow on the head or the administration of an anaesthetic.
    In Bratty, Lord Denning observed obiter that a crime committed while sleepwalking would appear to him to be one committed as an automaton. However, the ruling in R v Sullivan that diseases of the mind need have no permanence, led many academics to suggest that sleepwalkers might well be found to be suffering from a disease of the mind with internal causes unless there was clear evidence of an external causal factor.
    In R v Burgess 1991 2 WLR 1206 the Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant who wounded a woman by hitting her with a video recorder while sleepwalking, was insane under the M’Naghten Rules. Lord Lane said, “We accept that sleep is a normal condition, but the evidence in the instant case indicates that sleepwalking, and particularly violence in sleep, is not normal.”
    The courts have clearly drawn a distinction between internal and external factors affecting a defendant’s mental condition; this distinction would appear to depend largely upon elements of voluntariness and awareness in the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s actions; this is clear from Hennessy, above. In Quick & Paddison, above, for example, the distinction was made that although the defendant was a diabetic, his mental state was influenced less by his diabetes than by alcohol consumption and not eating, and it is implicit in the judgement that this had been, or could have been, within the defendant’s control. It would appear that if a defendant is aware of a medical condition which may affect his mental capacity and acts in a manner inimical to that condition, a defence of insanity under the Rules will not be available.

    There is occasionally a blurred interface between insanity and automatism, as the comment in Burgess above shows. Actions committed while sleepwalking would normally be considered as “non-insane automatism”, whereas in that case, violent assault was considered to support a finding of insanity within the Rules. See also automatism (case law).

    [edit] Nature and quality of the act
    This phrase refers to the physical nature and quality of the act, rather than the moral quality. It covers the situation where the defendant does not know what he is physically doing. Two common examples used are:

    The defendant cuts a woman’s throat under the delusion that he is cutting a loaf of bread,
    The defendant chops off a sleeping man’s head because he has the deluded idea that it would be great fun to see the man looking for it when he wakes up.
    The judges were specifically asked if a person could be excused if he committed an offence in consequence of an insane delusion. They replied that if he labours under such partial delusion only, and is not in other respects insane, “he must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real”. This rule requires the court to take the facts as the accused believed them to be and follows Hadfield’s Trial, above. If the delusions do not prevent the defendant from having mens rea there will be no defence. In R v Bell 1984 Crim. LR 685 the defendant smashed a van through the entrance gates of a holiday camp because, “It was like a secret society in there, I wanted to do my bit against it” as instructed by God. It was held that, as the defendant had been aware of his actions, he could neither have been in a state of automatism nor insane, and the fact that he believed that God had told him to do this merely provided an explanation of his motive and did not prevent him from knowing that what he was doing was wrong in the legal sense.

    [edit] Knowledge that the act was wrong
    “Wrong” here means legally rather than morally wrong. The defendant must be functionally unaware that his actions are legally wrong at the time of the offence to satisfy this requirement. In Windle 1952 2QB 826; 1952 2 All ER 1 246, the defendant killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin; he telephoned the police and said, “I suppose I’ll hang for this.” It was held that this was sufficient to show that although the defendant was suffering from a mental illness, he was aware that his act was wrong, and the defense was not allowed.

    [edit] Crimes without specific intent
    In DPP v Harper (1997) it was held that insanity is not generally a defence to strict liability offences. In this instance, the accused was driving with excess alcohol. By definition, the accused is sufficiently aware of the nature of the activity to commit the actus reus of driving and presumably knows that driving while drunk is legally wrong. Any other feature of the accused’s knowledge is irrelevant.

    [edit] The function of the jury
    Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 provides that a jury shall not return a special verdict that “the accused is not guilty by reason of insanity” except on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners of whom at least one has special experience in the field of mental disorder. This may require the jury to decide between conflicting medical evidence which they are not necessarily equipped to do, but the law goes further and allows them to disagree with the experts if there are facts or surrounding circumstances which, in the opinion of the court, justify the jury in coming to that conclusion.

    [edit] Sentencing
    Under section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991:

    1.Where the sentence for the offence to which the finding relates is fixed by law (e.g. murder), the court must make a hospital order restricting discharge without limitation of time. Otherwise, if there is adequate medical evidence and the defendant has been convicted of an imprisonable offence, a hospital order requires that the defendant be admitted to and detained in a hospital for treatment for a mental disorder (see sections 37-43 of the Mental Health Act 1983).
    2.In any other case the court may make:
    a hospital order and an order restricting discharge either for a limited or unlimited period of time;
    or in appropriate circumstances,
    a guardianship order;
    a supervision and treatment order; or
    an order for absolute discharge.

  13. Darien Caldwell

    Apr 27th, 2010


    Big deal. I could start a group named after Princeton, doesn’t mean it has anything to do with my group, or would condone the group or the actions of it’s members.

    Actions speak louder than words. Woodbury’s ‘campus’ was nothing but Meme-based foolishness, not a single piece of any of the sims were dedicated to actual learning in any form. There were no classes; there was nothing going on there that was educational in any form.

    Basically it’s like one of those lame movies where a bunch of kids get some grown-up to help them form a fake school so they can fool their parents while they are actually out partying. Wait, wasn’t that an actual movie? :rolleyes:

    Woodbury was a griefer group, using the guise of being ‘educational’ to keep itself on the grid. It’s good LL finally quit buying their line of bullshit.

  14. V

    Apr 27th, 2010

  15. Tux Winkler

    Apr 27th, 2010

    @ David / billy
    “Hey, was that Tuxette Magic I shagged a month ago at Bukkake Bliss?”
    - Although I am not interested in my wife’s movements in SL anymore than she is in mine, I can assure you you did not ‘shag’ her. The most you done was ‘shag’ your own hand looking at her pixel representation.
    - FYI, as we are married in RL, live together along with our children, I get to know what RL love making feels like. This means I do not say stoopid things like ‘I’ll put a sock on my hand to make it feel more real’. Because those of us who are happily married knows the only thing that makes it feel real is reality itself!

    “I notice she’s no longer partnered to you.”
    - We have never been partnered, we do completely different things and don’t need to pretend we are together when we are in the same room – XD

    “So did she dump you, or did you dump her?”
    - The only dump here is what you are taking every time you post. Please come back with something even funnier.

    /me wonders why there are no forums, we could have a writings of David thread – XD

  16. Senban Babii

    Apr 27th, 2010


    “Big deal. I could start a group named after Princeton, doesn’t mean it has anything to do with my group, or would condone the group or the actions of it’s members.”

    From http://www.woodbury.edu/s/131/index.aspx?sid=131&gid=1&pgid=1396&sparam=slcc&scontid=0

    “Representatives of Woodbury University participated in the 4th Annual Second Life Community Convention (SLCC) held September 5-7 in Tampa, Florida. Dr. Edward Clift, director of the School of Media, Culture & Design at Woodbury University, attended the convention with Jordan Bellino, a student in the Department of Communication. Together with Second Life (SL) businessman Mike Lorrey and several virtual students drawn to the online campus, they hosted a private gathering for conference attendees to meet and greet one another in the “real” world.”

  17. Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia

    Apr 27th, 2010

    So many trolls, it’s hard to decide which ones to feed.

    @billy: Hyperlinks. You must learn to use them.

    @Darien: The idea that WU was not affiliated with a RL university is obviously ridiculous.

    You want to know how WU could have possibly been educational? Well, I was never a member, but I saw opportunities for scholarly work all over WU’s sim.

    Let me explain:

    Dr Clift bought the PNs land after they were booted. The regulars on that land seemed to never go away so he and his students were set on from all sides by the PN, Prok, the JLU and LL. In all of this he probably found many teachable moments:

    History/Sociology/Economics: Prok’s crazy cat lady blog posts were all about communism, Leninism, socialism, capitalism and many other -isms that I think she made up. When his students were accused of being Leninists, that would have been a perfect opportunity to go look up Leninism, for example. Ditto for terrorism. That way they know exactly why Prok is so darn absurd. You miss the finer points of her absurdity if you don’t know about Marxism.

    Mathematics/Physics: Physical object weapons (admit it, making guns is how all of us really learned what a vector is).

    Computer Programming: WU members coded… a lot.

    Art: From the looks of the place, and the responses to Prok, I think we can safely assume that Clift’s students were creating works to study deconstruction, guerrilla art, criticism, the politics of world art communities and just about anything post-modern.

    Literature/Civics/Law/Ethics: The JLU are based on comic book characters. Comic books are a very hot topic in English lit departments the past few years. Also, there are many civics and ethical lessons that can be learned from the JLU’s approach to vigilanteism.

    Corporate/Contract Law: LL’s abuse of Woodbury, plus you know every member of WU has read the TOS many times over by now. When most people get accused of breaking a contract they usually take the time to read it to see what they did wrong.

    Academic Recognition: Dr. Clift is an academic. As such, he knows that the easiest way to get published in comm media is to write about greifers (just ask Ludlow or Jenkins). Now, I do not know of anything he has published on Woodbury, but I suspect that he has or at least will publish at least one paper on the fiasco.

    This is the kind of thing that professors are going to have to do if they are to really use new media in the classrooms. The internet is not just something to put on a projector and tell people to look at. It is a lab and a case study. To learn here you need to find teachable moments in all of this chaos.

    Again, I’m not saying that Clift actually did this. I don’t know him, and I only know a couple of members of WU. I’m just explaining how WU could have been (and probably was) educational.

  18. Judge Joker

    Apr 27th, 2010

    For anyone who has issues with Linden Labs, that has been unresolvable though Linden dialog, meetings, tickets or the AR system and is in the United States.

    The Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, collects complaints about companies, business practices, identity theft, and episodes of violence in the media.

    Why: Your complaints can help us detect patterns of wrong-doing, and lead to investigations and prosecutions. The FTC enters all complaints it receives into Consumer Sentinel, a secure online database that is used by thousands of civil and criminal law enforcement authorities worldwide. The FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints.


  19. Darien Caldwell

    Apr 27th, 2010

    “Are you srsly doubting that Woodbury was the official representation of Woodbury University in SL?”

    Did you just seriously post a link to Wikipedia? LMAO! Thats like holding up a hand-drawn picture and saying “look! proof of bigfoot!”

  20. Darien Caldwell

    Apr 27th, 2010

    I think the caption on this picture of the Woodbury School Bus says it all:

  21. V

    Apr 27th, 2010



  22. Gaara Sandalwood

    Apr 27th, 2010

    First he laughs at a wikipedia link, then links a picture to failblog, which has less factual credibility than wikipedia…..

    No wonder I decided to take a vacation from actively being here.

  23. Observing, nothing more

    Apr 28th, 2010

    @ Intlibber:

    your right of revolution or any and all other documented rights and laws and what not… suprise here for you..


    Lets say, you revolt. Get a biiiig mass of AV’s together and head for LL’s ‘white house’..

    What do you think will happen?

    Worst case scenario for you guys… you all get banned. Lose yoru accounts, your everything, and have to start anew.

    Worst case scenario for LL… you all get banned, and start a shitstorm in the media. And everyone left alive in SL will probably say something along the lines of…


    you signed all your rights, INCLUDING THE ONE FOR FREE SPEECH, away when you clicked the ” I agree” button on the TOS.

    Keep living in yer dreamworld where SL is a country and you are fighting for democracy… But in reality, SL is a service, and the company that runs it, can deny anyone they choose the access to that service.

    And it’s instances like this, where we see it proven that indeed yes, they CAN and they WILL deny people the use of their service.

    You say you’ve been treated unjustly… I say, you agreed to the treatment you got, when you first signed up.

    READ the TOS before you agree to it, and situations like this where you’ll have to expose yoruself as a retard that cant read the fine print, can be prevented in the future.


    if you agree to let someone punch you in the face, dont complain about it hurting afterwards. You’ll look like a retard.

  24. Observing, nothing more

    Apr 28th, 2010

    ” No, I was not warned that they could confiscate my virtual currency when I bought it.” – J

    Then you didnt read the fine print. Dont you feel silly now for overlooking that small, but oh so horribly important detail, which HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AGAIN AND AGAIN and again and again… and im starting to feel like a broken record here.

    And still people dont realize that they HAVE NOTHING POSESS NOTHNG CAN MAKE CLAIMS on NOTHING under LL’s control.

    Your money isnt yours
    your bought clothing isnt yours
    your made snapshots arent yours
    your uploaded textures are not yours
    your created objects are not yours

    even your intellectual property rights, freedom of speech, your right to use SL… isnt yours, never was, never will be.

    Its all in the TOS. Read em and weep.

    People invest in SL. People get burned. People bawwww. LL doesnt care. People dont learn. People get a new sim. People invest. people get burned. people baww. LL STILL DOESNT CARE.

    People will never learn…

  25. Tux Winkler

    Apr 28th, 2010

    @ Observing

    Actually for those of us who are old enough to remember, we was sold SL as being ours, the land, the creations, and the scripts. Created and owned by us. The Lab sold it to us as owners not as an allowance for using a service. They changed the rules. And screwed people over.

    And are you so sure everyone accepted the TOS? XD

  26. Gundel Gaukelei

    Apr 28th, 2010

    @ Observing

    There seems to be at least a chance to wipe some parts of the TOS in court, because, much to my surprise, US law seems so know about contracts of adhesion. So there seems to be at least some protection of customer credulity, as long as you play stupid and keep pretending you didn’t know.

  27. Observing, nothing more

    Apr 29th, 2010

    ” Actually for those of us who are old enough to remember, we was sold SL as being ours,”

    well, ACTUALLY actually, that clause has been in the TOS since at least ’05.

    Your world your imagination has always been their selling point yes,
    but ‘no not really’ has always been in the fine print.

    and yes im sure people accepted the new TOS, you cant really log in if you dont click the ‘I agree” button…

    You can of course not accept it but then you’re gonna have to not play Second Life anymore.

    and yeah, you can play stupid, but I dont think there’s much playing involved if you need to take things to court. It’s not smart to invest anything of value in a game that has proven time and time again to be unreliable and gamegods that are untrustworthy.

  28. Tinfoil Hats Are Back In Style

    Apr 29th, 2010

    Wow, IntLibber. Coincidence that your declaration of revolution against Linden Lab is proclaimed just one day before one of the most debilitating grid crashes in recent memory?

  29. Judge Joker

    Apr 30th, 2010

    @Tinfoil Hats Are Back In Style

    I see how that could be a problem for you being unable to wear your SL Tinfoil hat all yesterday.

    I think the desired goal here is for you to not name yourself the same thing your trying to call someone else.

  30. Felicie

    Apr 30th, 2010

    I saw nothing in the story about what they supposedly did wrong, nor did I see anything said in their defense other than – LL won’t say to Loki Clifton why. It wouldn’t surprise me that he would associate with griefers or use programs that are strictly no-no… i’ve seen him use a couple. This is just chicken little nonsense. IMO

  31. IntLibber Brautigan

    Apr 30th, 2010

    @Tinfoil Hats,

    Dear Linden Lab,
    Due to repeated acts violating your Terms of Service contract with your users, we have put you on 24 hour suspension. This is your first punishment. If you continue to violate the Terms of Service, the length of your suspensions will increase until your users suspend your accounts with them indefinitely.

    IntLibber Brautigan
    Userbase Governance Team

  32. Ted

    Apr 30th, 2010

    @ Gundel

    Yes. You should read the fine print. However, Linden did advertise, state, and confirm time and time again that the virtual land itself was not the property of Linden Lab once sold. That the purchaser “owned” the land, and had “Title Deed” to the land. Also advertised and stated was that the world was “created and OWNED by it’s residents”.

    These are the terms we signed up under. Linden was a first to state allowed ownership within a resident created world. And this is why people signed up for the service in the first place. The boom being 2005-2006 under the guise of ownership.

    If someone rightfully owns something as Linden has stated and advertised prior to all of their TOS updates and reinventions, then, the space and objects should indeed be “OWNED” by them. Not Linden.

    If indeed the resident, client, owns such, Linden has no right to just delete it, remove it, or in any way cause harm. Including financial harm despite their flawed terms.

    If you own a home in the US, and a tenant does not pay the rent, you cannot just kick them out or shut them down. You have to go through various time consuming legal hoops to evict others from your owned space.

    The argument being made is that although Linden did advertise, state publicly on many occasions, and continued for years to promote the “OWNERSHIP” of the world created by the residents, that Linden’s fine print, and alterations of the fine print, over rides all of the above and that they can evict one from the service due to the permissions allowed them within the Terms of Service they themselves write and re-write.

    Again, I don’t buy that. Linden changed their terms of service year in and year out. Changed their advertisement year in and year out. Many times on a whim causing huge disruption to those on the service (open space debacle).

    Has Linden ever kept with pre existing contracts? Yes. They have. It’s widely known that Linden has indeed kept to pre-existing terms as they have allowed “grandfathering” of prices based on when the the virtual space was purchased.

    Pre-existing terms do play a part. And there were clearly terms that presented ownership of both “virtual land deed” and “user generated content” at the feet of the SL community.

    Continuously moving the goal posts doesn’t allow for a true winner. As the only one that knows what’s going on is the referee.

  33. IntLibber Brautigan

    May 1st, 2010

    Quite right, Ted. The Bragg case, and Phillip’s testimony in it, clearly establishes the facts.

    In the Bragg case, Cyn Linden was the responsible individual who seized Bragg’s property and banned him. This former art gallery sales girl has since continued to fail upwards vis a vis the Dilbert Principle to be VP of Customer Service. One can generally credit her with ultimate responsibility for all the crap thats been done to destroy SL.

    However, with the adhesion modification of the TOS over time, equal responsibility falls on Marty Roberts, who replaced Ginsu Yoon as chief counsel of LL, although Ginsu himself began the era of waffling and bullshitting away the users property rights, when he famously claimed on Metanomics that the Linden Dollar wasn’t a currency or money, but a “licensed service”. This was the beginning of the end for the SL economy, when representatives of Saxo Bank, from Denmark, decried this statement of Ginsu as very damaging for the virtual economy because it destroyed trust.

    Someone recently said that someone should tell Lawrence Lessig what LL has done with the economy his policies helped create. He may be concerned enough to remove his endorsement from the way they’ve handled it since his time.

  34. Ted

    May 2nd, 2010

    “Ginsu himself began the era of waffling and bullshitting away the users property rights, when he famously claimed on Metanomics that the Linden Dollar wasn’t a currency or money, but a “licensed service”.”

    Well, this is another issue with the whole Linden Lab situation with the Terms of Service. Linden has changed the terms over time to state that the license agreements within SL are granted by Linden. That it is Linden who grants usage rights for content within Second Life. It’s true that they have done the same thing with the “L” dollar although I don’t see the “L” dollar as being the primary issue as a granted license by Linden.

    You are talking about a 100 percent turnaround. From owning both virtual space per deed (removing linden from virtual space ownership), virtual property being owned by the creator, to Linden granting usage or “licenses” over all works and virtual space within Second Life. All of which are licensed under pre-existing terms.

    That is my case.

    Linden cannot grant license on pre existing license(s) agreements, nor over ride pre-existing license agreements. That is most likely what any judge in their right mind would be telling Linden in court if they can see what they have done. The original agreements were not with Linden and their terms. The original agreements within Second Life were between the licensee and the person that created the content as they owned both virtual space, and the creations within it. This was our world, our imagination. This was a world created and OWNED by it’s residents.

    All of those agreements were made between the person creating the content and the licensee of that content under the original “ownership” agreements Linden had in place. Under the original agreements that are in discussion.

    The whole power grab was over the use of the clients and removing content from Second Life. It’s been moving towards this for some time as open source alternatives, other types of services become available.

    Content should certainly be allowed to be removed from Second Life under the terms of the original agreements. Linden is now granting license on pre-existing licensed works and over riding the agreements made between those that “OWN” the virtual world. Thus in my mind, their whole terms is null and void. They can argue different, but not allowing the removal of full permission items and putting further terms on the content and it’s removal is indeed what they are doing.

    Linden Lab and Second Life are not what was agreed to. That is not what was signed up for. And millions of dollars were spent under the guise of both virtual space land ownership, as well as virtual creation ownership. It is not what was advertised in any concept of the word OWN.

    For Linden, It was simply easier to build a moat around Second Life and alter the terms to suit their controlling desire and their complete lack of control over the future.

    All of this does not change the fact that Linden Lab has messed over everyone in Second Life. And if and when this ever makes it to court, I can only hope that a judge will see what they have done. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist.

    Linden played both sides of the game. They told everyone that they don’t get in between residents transactions and business when it suited them (fraudsters sending the money to the top ripping people off), and the other side of the game where they now license everything they claimed you owned taking full control.

    The only question is, will anyone listen. Will the lawyers get it?
    When you talk about this as many that have a passion for the platform do, you are often looked at cross eyed like you yourself live on a different planet and have no concept of reality.

    I think it will take a whole lot of people getting tired of it. Seeing what has been done. And right now, I think they are just plain happy building Lindens’ world with Linden’s imagination being the key goal. They see a buck is still left, and that is all they care about.

    As far as I’m concerned, it’s everyone’s loss including mine. And a closed account was all that I could do to resolve the issues I have with their effort at continuously changing terms.

  35. At0m0 Beerbaum

    May 2nd, 2010


    “Dr Clift bought the PNs land after they were booted. The regulars on that land seemed to never go away so he and his students were set on from all sides by the PN, Prok, the JLU and LL. In all of this he probably found many teachable moments:”

    quit fucking talking.

  36. At0m0 Beerbaum

    May 2nd, 2010

    This just in, Second Life, Virtual land, and fake currency are a scam!

    more troubling developments at 11.

  37. Curious

    May 2nd, 2010

    Hmm what does the law saw about items bought in SL and backed up before the change in the TOS or items backed up during the 30 day ” grace period” after you were either forced to accept the TOS under duress ( you have to accept to log in and sell out or what ever else you needed to do) after all if it was done before the changes. I see all of this as LL being afraid of people backing up their Inventory and moving it to a new grid. I see nothig wrong with this since it was bought until you either pass it on to another person or try to sell it.
    In either case this is all a bunch of bullshit and instead of money I would want either a grandfathered TOS on land and inventory bought beofre the changes or a complete roll over of the TOS to when we actually owned our land.
    At the people involved in this lawsuit. You need to be quiet about this and not mention this in the blogs or any other forum. Linden Labs I am sure has people out here trolling to spike an emotional response that can later be gleaned for information to be used aginst you later in court. Use your head and stay out of the spot light.
    All that said good luck and try to make something right out of this and not some silly soapbox drama.

  38. Ted

    May 3rd, 2010

    At0m0 Beerbaum : wrote:

    “This just in, Second Life, Virtual land, and fake currency are a scam!
    more troubling developments at 11.”

    Well, you do realize that people don’t understand just how bad Linden Lab is. I do realize that it’s easier to make a joke out of what Linden has done to people in Second Life, but, I don’t think it’s funny at all. I really don’t. I hope that Linden will pay dearly for what they are doing, what they have done, and what their imperious decisions have caused.

    It’s not a joke when people are ripped off. It’s not a joke when people lose money believing in what a company states. And Linden has taken everyone in Second Life to the cleaners. That is the bottom line. And no matter who hangs on to the gullible effort of that company, at some time in the future, they will understand what Linden has done. They begged for “protection” of intellectual property as based on Linden Lab’s concepts of what they could do technically with a permissions system. What they do not realize is what laws Linden has broken. Linden needs thrown off the net for what they have done to people. That is the bottom line. They need shut down.

    You cannot offer that which you can not offer, entice as Linden has done, and continue with changes of terms that are not in direct reflection of the laws that protect consumers, and end up with what Linden desires.

    Linden Lab is a ghost. They have harmed, they continue to harm, and they will at some point be held accountable for what they are and what they do. You have my word.

    Do I hate Linden Lab and Second Life? No, I hate not whom they are, but the deeds they are known by and the fruit they bear. I don’t hate them as individuals, I hate their deeds as a corporate entity. I do indeed hate their evil, their greed, their lust for profit at the expense of the individual. As I view it, they are the epidemy of evil.

    And with all in me do I hate whom Linden Lab is with the deeds I had witnessed for over 5 years. The head games, the fraud, the poor business practices, the poor … well pick your own Linden evil, it certainly wouldn’t be difficult. You name it, Linden either allowed, or did it themselves.

    What do I see out of it. Well, I don’t expect you to believe what I am about to state. I don’t . But it will happen.

    Linden Lab will pay the price from the creator himself for what they have done. They will indeed reap what they have sown. My loss, nor those of another, will not be without remittance, because I believe in the creator, and I believe it so. Therefor, it shall be.

    People think when you state such that it is in vanity. Well, mark the words, mark the date, and stand fast that you bear witness to what is coming for those that do as they do. For they shall be known by their fruits, just as we shall.

  39. Religious Fruitloop

    May 3rd, 2010


    “Linden Lab will pay the price from the creator himself for what they have done. They will indeed reap what they have sown. My loss, nor those of another, will not be without remittance, because I believe in the creator, and I believe it so. Therefor, it shall be.

    People think when you state such that it is in vanity. Well, mark the words, mark the date, and stand fast that you bear witness to what is coming for those that do as they do. For they shall be known by their fruits, just as we shall.”

    This was so funny I had an lolgasm.

    Oh wait, you’re serious?

    I just had an even bigger lolgasm.

  40. Curious

    May 3rd, 2010

    This is an interesting legal look at the new TOS worth watching.


  41. Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia

    May 4th, 2010

    @Curious: Thanks for that link. It was very informative.

  42. Al the Pretender

    May 4th, 2010

    So …i guess…..nobody will talk about……Woodbury’s recent Hack at Modular’s System (Greenlife Esmerald) Forum accounts……as a revenge…..or Tizzers was just bored…..she does get bored a lot……

    *sigh* once a griefer always a griefer………Good riddance….PNs W-Hats………sheeesh

  43. MMMmmm Tacos

    May 4th, 2010

    To quote Phillip Rosedale’s admissions in court: “we said ‘What you have in Second Life is real and it is yours. It doesn’t belong to us. We have no claim to it. Whatever you do in Second Life is your own iintellectual property. You can claim copyright on it. You can make money.’…. we said the same thing about land: Land is yours to own and resell… Let’s just make this a real world. Let’s let it have a real economy and lets make property have real value….The preservation of user’s property rights is a necessary step toward the emergence of genuinely real online worlds.”

    This Land by IntLibber Brautigan (adapted from original work by Woodie Guthrie)

    This land is our land, it’s not their land,
    From the shores of Caldbeck, to the Ancapistan Island
    From the furry forests, to the Woodbury Sea,
    This land was made for you and me.

    As I was walking a prim ribbon of highway
    I saw above me, endless skyboxway
    I saw below me, a Sandbox valley
    This land was made for you and me.

    I’ve tp’d and godmode flown, I’ve followed prim steps
    To the sparkling sands of sim deserts
    And all around me, an IM was spamming
    This land was made for you and me.

    As I was flyin’ – I saw a ban line
    And that banline said – no tress passin’
    But on the other side … it didn’t say nothin!
    Now that side was made for you and me

    In the squares of Bay City – in the shadow of the steeple
    Near the Welcome Area – I see my blingtard people
    And some are grumblin’ and some are wonderin’
    If this land’s still made for you and me.

  44. MMMmmm Tacos

    May 4th, 2010

    And of course the secret, inside the Lab, additional verse:

    This land is my land, it is not your land
    I’ve got a ban button, and you don’t got one
    I’ll permban your ass, if you don’t shut up and behave
    This land was made just for you to be slaves.

  45. Thank you WU!

    May 5th, 2010

    thank you for the laughter, the bawwwww you’re singing
    thanks for all the lulz theyre bringing
    Who can live without it, I ask in all honesty
    what would life be?
    Whitout a Woodbury whining, what are we?

    So I say thank you for your bawwwwing,
    for giving it to me!

  46. just pointing out...

    May 6th, 2010

    ” To quote Phillip Rosedale’s admissions in court: “we said ‘What you have in Second Life is real and it is yours. It doesn’t belong to us.”

    This isnt true anymore tho, if you’ve taken the time to read the new TOS. even the L$ isnt yours but only licenced from LL.

  47. Doc

    May 6th, 2010

    well, somehow its weird.

    We have two theories here…

    1. Woodbury is the source of all evil in SL, full of evil griefers, hackers and whatnot.

    2. Woodbury is full of awesome builders, scripters, and creative people.

    no matter wich theory is right, the takedown was a dumb idea.
    if the firstone is true, then nothing will change, because evil griefers dont need a home location, and can come back on alts anytime they want.
    And if the secondone is true, its more a loss for Lindenlab, then for the creative people, because they wont waste their time in SL anymore, and will be creative in other worlds.
    and if its a mix of both, the nice people left, and the bad people stay.
    I see no success in all this.

    So, the whole thing wont change anything for the griefer victims, that sneak out of their holes these days to give WU a last “LOL GOODBYE”

  48. IntLibber Brautigan

    May 6th, 2010

    @just pointing out,
    The point of the class action is, that individuals who joined SL and invested sums of money and work into developing land, building content, and lost it to LL malfeasance, corruption, manipulation, and other abuses, prior to the changes in the TOS, are, according to the Bragg case, protected by their original contract with LL. Forced agreement to a new TOS after making such investments constitutes an adhesion contract which the courts find unenforceable.

    Now, you can continue to taunt and boo-hoo and rant, and go ‘neener neener’ with your fingers in your ears and eyes wide shut, and make other noises here and elsewhere, but your noise really doesn’t matter one whit. The weight of the law is on our side, not LL.

  49. Noxious Gas

    May 6th, 2010

    IntLibber files a lot of law suits – but has anybody ever heard of anything happening after that?

    Has anybody actually ever seen any papers from any of his supposed law suits?

    If you’re such a business shark, Intblub, why did you have to move back in with your mom?

  50. IntLibber Brautigan

    May 6th, 2010

    a) Other than joining this class action, I’ve filed exactly 1 countersuit in the last five years, and the result was the idiot who tried to sue me never showed up in court, so I allowed the matter to drop. So you’ve got your head up your ass.

    b) its summer, moron.

Leave a Reply