Lalo Telling

Courthouse News Service

There's a link in that article to a PDF of the complaint. I read it, all 64 pages. Interesting.

Grace McDunnough has a good discussion of it on her blog, too.

__________________
Telling: Like it Is

Ann Otoole

When all these anti LL litigants kill SL can we sue them to make sure they never have a dime left in life?

I have to wonder if the judge will just laugh in their faces and remind them that as consumers they have the responsibility to understand the difference between bullshit and reality.

Siggy

I've read the links, but I'm NOT a lawyer - so I'm having a hard time finding where the thrust of this suit is coming from....

Any legal beagles care to explain it? Is it a false representation of 'owning land'?

__________________
And as it was in the beginning, so too shall it be in the end. That bullshit is bullshit, it just goes by different names.

Samantha Poindexter

They're throwing a lot of very different complaints out here, possibly in hopes that at least one of them will stick, but I think the core of this one is that (1) LL and Rosedale said that you could buy land and merchandise in SL, and it would be yours; (2) LL banned the plaintiffs from SL, seizing their land and assets without giving them a dime in return; and that (3) the very public statements about owning property in SL outweigh the TOS, which the plaintiffs couldn't reasonably be expected to have read all the way through. Therefore, (4) LL needs to stop doing everything the plaintiffs don't approve of and give everybody a brand new pony.

Okay, I may be paraphrasing (4) too loosely, but I think that's the gist of it.

__________________
Philip 3:16
For Rosedale so loved the grid, that he rezzed his only begotten Avatar, that whosoever believeth in him shall not crash, but have eternal Second Life.

Ann Otoole

Unless you can buy memory in running servers there was never any "land" to buy. This makes as much sense and buying parcels on the moon and on mars.

Ann Otoole

At almost the same time LL nuked woodbury and banned them from SL. Coincidence?

Boy Lane

But but but....I already booked the mover

__________________
The Rainbow Girl
Be plurked: http://plurk.com/BoyLane

Jura Shepherd

I've read that sentence twice today it it looked strange to me both times.

__________________

Cristiano

Here is the direct link to the PDF:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/20/SecondLife.pdf

__________________
"Absence diminishes small loves and increases great ones, as the wind extinguishes candles and fans fires" -Francois de La Rochefoucauld

* my blog *

Isablan Neva

The cynic in me says that they couldn't have timed this better for a company that is doing damn near anything it can to get themselves back into the public eye.

__________________
________________________________

SLU: I came for the community. I stayed for the derails.


Visit my Marketplace Store!

Siggy

Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV - SL - Radio....

.....but the 'ownership of land' thing seems very common sense to me, so they're just playing the pedantic (I know some folks have bandied that argument in the past and not gotten far - that being said they haven't said it in court)......so how effective would this argument be? Especially since Phil has said publicly words to the effect of 'yeah - you don't OWN it... bad choice of words' in the past (and of course it being a rather retarded notion to take literally).

How would that come off in a legal case (real legal beagles only on that please - I'm after an actual answer or informed opinion over speculation....no offense).

On being banned... well the TOS sorta covers banning and all that.. but I know theres been one case that went to the judges over banning and land before - could this be a spite-copycat case to try and get a few bucks post-ban?

And the whole IPO thing..... I honestly can't recall where there has been REAL talk about a Second Life public offering. I've heard a bunch of speculation and rhetoric from 'less than reliable sources'. Has such a thing been brought up (again, actual sources - such as announcements - blogs - town halls... stuff directly from the horses mouth as opposed to the horses arse).

Just curious, as a layman reading it (as opposed to other cases I kind of understood) it seems like Macbeth:

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Stroker Serpentine

Sig..think Bragg v LL on steroids. Same Fed Judge too.

Desmond Shang

Cutting to the chase, they are asking 5 million USD in damages.

Claiming loss of $L, property &c.

5 million USD worth of $L would be... hmm... $L 1.3 billion.

In regions... pfft, who knows, if we ignore tier for a second and go with then prices, what was it, 1650 per region... 5 mill/1650 is something like 3000 regions.

3000 regions back in 2007... I dunno. Even Anshe wasn't that big back then.

This whole thing is pretty confusing. I doubt anyone at all had 5 million invested in the grid in 2007.

And if the ownership claims stick... I suppose they have to keep paying the tier on what they 'own' as well?

I'm lost here.

Lordfly Digeridoo

the figure 5 million is reached via the same weird ways software companies claim hundreds of billions were lost due to piracy.

__________________
http://www.lordfly.com/

Stroker Serpentine

I wouldn't hastily dismiss this one. California has some of the most fickle business statutes of any state. Will be interesting to watch. Particularly since this judge has already ruled the LL TOS as "unconscienable".

Samantha Poindexter

In excess of $5 million, but this is for the entire affected class of, essentially, everybody who's used SL, not just the plaintiffs named in the suit.

(See paragraph 173 for the definition of the "Main Class.")

Lordfly Digeridoo

I, too, look forward to the end of the grid due to the 400 lawsuits a day brought on by people who didn't read the ToS.

Maybe I'll sue Linden Lab for emotional distress for being led to believe I could actually make a career out of SL stuff and have henced wasted 3 years of my life. I'll sue them for 40 billion quatloos and a Havok5-enabled pony.

Stroker Serpentine

190 degree coffee anyone?

Psyke Phaeton

Make it a class action and I am in

__________________

Evil String

In the end, the only people making money from Secon Life will be lawyers. Forget sculpties.

__________________

Cristalle

IIRC, only the arbitration clause was ruled unconscionable, not the entire thing. The rest of the TOS would be operative thanks to a severance clause that says that if any part of the contract was found to be unenforceable, the rest would be in effect.

Lalo Telling

I may be blogging abut this later, but...

An important part of the claim is framed around the "clickwrap" agreement with the ToS in order to get in, coupled with LL's habit of revisionism.

Sound familiar? Like, having to agree on March 31 of this year to a revised ToS and 16 (or so) supporting documents adopted by reference, in order to keep getting in and managing whatever business you've started, even though what you must agree to does not go into effect for 30 days?

And while we're on the subject: Shouldn't we all, technically, have to agree again to the latest ninja revision of the TPV?

I have no idea if Evans, et al. has merit as a "bait and switch" case, which is what it boils down to. I would love to know the circumstances under which the plaintiffs were suddenly denied access (they claim, with no prior notice). One person I've talked to speculated that they didn't pay their tier on time, which would pretty much turn this suit into a joke... but I can't imagine the lawyer pressing this suit knowing it could be so easily dismissed.

Nevertheless -- it does serve to raise the profile of the Lab's habit of talking out of both sides of their ass at the same time... and that one of the Lindens might have the name WinstonSmith.

Boy Lane

I haven't agreed to any TPV yet, but I had the same thoughts yesterday. TPV however is still not in effect, so all this is rather theoretical.

Interesting in this regard may just be that KLee self certified to the previous first 3rd party viewer policy (which is different to the normal clickwrap agreement to ToS) that was overwritten two times now already. So what actually is legally relevant and what not? I just see it as a big mess LL has to fix before 30 April, probably with another ToS/TPV popup at login.

Isablan Neva

Fixed.

Amber Guity

As for the IPO business, that seems rather ridiculous to me. Only direct investors into the company would benefit from an IPO, not customers. Buying virtual land is not an investment, it is purchasing a product. Pretty basic distinction. I'm surprised they are trying to pull that one.