Slashdot Mirror
Virtual Land, Real Court, Real Money
Wired is reporting on what may be a first: a real world court appearance over a virtual land claim. From the article: "The attorney, Marc Bragg of West Chester, Pennsylvania, says game developer Linden Lab unilaterally shut down his Second Life account, cutting off his access to a substantial portfolio of real estate and currency in the virtual world. He's demanding $8,000 in restitution. Bragg claims Linden Lab froze his account after a land deal went bad. The attorney said he found a legitimate way to purchase land at prices far below market rates, using an online auction on the Second Life website."
The guy exploits a bug, gets his account shut out, and is expecting money?
"Without merit" indeed.
2 things, there is probably somthing saying if you use an exploit you will get your account deleted and also just the sheer fact that he used such a underhanded way to cheat the online auction system... He deserves his account deleted.
Watch what happens next--Linden Labs will slap a countersuit at him alleging a DMCA violation. Sad thing is, their case will have a whole lot more merit than his does.
This guy's the limit!
Linden may be morons for making their auction system easy to exploit, but in the same way companies aren't liable for misprints in ad fliers, and companies can cancel obviously broken sales (like when an airline website accidently sells flights for $.02; the airline can cancel those sales, though usually they don't for PR reasons), Linden isn't obligated to honor a contract which the guy games the system to secure.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Intentional or unintentional is beside the point.
When, in the arena of Law, is "intentional or unintentional" EVER beside the point?
Since he paid money to play the game, he is entitled and obliged to maximize his gaming experience by using the tools provided to him by the developer.
He paid money to play a game with the agreement that he would play by the game's rules. The game's operators determined unilaterally that his behavior was in violation of the rules (as the user agreement almost certainly gives them authority to do), and used said malfeasance as the basis for terminating the user's contract with them.
Plaintiff has no case, in my non-lawyerly opinion.
I'm subscribed to Second Life, and I see this whole issue as being very simple. I tend to have balanced views on most things, and this is no exception.
Bragg clearly perpetrated a simple scam. He knows that Linden Labs never intended to sell $1000 sims for $1, so he obtained the land inappropriately. There can be no denying this. How US law might view this is completely irrelevant to whether it was actually right or wrong, because ethically it was 100% wrong.
But Linden Labs have created a world where customers (not LL) own their personal content, and by implication they have independent lives and livelihoods and businesses etc etc. To cut off Bragg from his possessions, his virtual life, his livelihood and businesses was not only inappropriate, it was totally underhand and almost evil. They unilaterally executed this virtual person (I'm serious), without due process in-world nor any opportunity for defense. How US law might view this is completely irrelevant to whether it was actually right or wrong, because ethically it was 100% wrong. LL's Terms of Service are immaterial to the rights or wrongs of it in-world.
So there you have it. Neither side holds the moral high ground, and they both made mistakes. They should settle halfway and put it down to experience.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Not that I think there is a case but that is because he committed fraud.
At least in europe all those agreements got a line that effectively says, this agreement is binding unless the law says otherwise. It is basically what they hope they can get away with until someone has the balls to take them to court.
Don't believe EULA's.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Bad example. Are you really familiar with the details of case or just the strawman version popular among those in favor of tort reform? McDonald's sold the woman a beverage that, by their own admission is "not fit for consumption" when handed it to a customer. They sold their coffee far hotter than just about anyone else. They had been repeatedly warned about their coffee and serious burns had happened before. This wasn't a woman dangerously mixing drinking coffee and driving; she was a passenger in the vehicle in question. The woman originally contacted McDonald's and only asked for McDonald's to cover her medical expenses. Only when McDonald's refuse did she turn to a lawsuit. Even then she asked for a relatively small amount of money (on the order of $200,000; a reasonable amount considering she had many thousands of dollars of medical bills and now a lawyer's bills). The rest of the judgement was punitive damages assigned by the jury when they learned that how negligent McDonald's was. This wasn't someone greedily trying to get free money. This was a 79-year-old woman trying to cope with sudden large medical bills because McDonald's had sold her a dangerously hot beverage.
A good summary of the facts of the case.
Search 2010 Gen Con events