Comments on: Wut Oh, Part One

By: Squeax

Squeax — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:27:27 +0000

Entering URL in your browser’s location bar is not hacking.

By: numtini

numtini — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:04:45 +0000

I don’t know how this plays out legally, but it seems to me that a one sided TOS for an entertainment game that costs $15 a month and provides nothing but entertainment (at least officially) is categorically different from applying the same standards when there are thousands of dollars at issue.

This guy is a creep who engaged in hacking their site and Linden should have every right to do what they did. But what about someone who violates TOS for gambling or offensive behavior. Does Linden really have the right to just confiscate a $3000 sim without any appeal?

By: Ardanna

Ardanna — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:46:14 +0000

Raph asks:

“when you ban a bug exploiter, do you refund their cash?”

Well, we do. I work in the entertainment industry. We provide a place for people to talk. If they misbehave we remove them from the system, sometimes permanently.

If we do that, we refund their money for their last purchase.

It’s a lot better than trying to face the legal ramifications of – I bought time on your system and now you are preventing me from using that time which I paid for.

By: CmdrSlack

CmdrSlack — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:43:51 +0000

What’ll make it really tough is that one of the reasons that the court gave was basically, “there’s no other product like Second Life.” Right now, if you want to own your stuff, etc., SL is the only place to go.

WoW, on the other hand, is just another fantasy diku. Don’t like WoW’s TOS? Go play LoTRO. Or DAOC or EQ/EQ2, etc.

I’m a bit shocked that the Linden folks didn’t utilize the business realities exception. Had they done that, they may have avoided losing that motion.

Either way, the case has a long way to go, I’m excited to see what happens.

By: xaldin

xaldin — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:28:39 +0000

The EULAs have long been one sided for the company. I really wouldn’t mind a court smashing it back down to something a bit more fair and have long advocated such things. The whole ‘we can do anything we want and you can do nothing, own nothing and have no voice unless it amuses us’ is long overdue to be crushed. It will have trouble being ported over to the other MMOs but I could see it coming up if someone was to sue over a banned account.

By: cyanbane

cyanbane — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 05:15:35 +0000

do you think Linden will get this into a TIME mag article?

By: Riprend

Riprend — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 03:05:54 +0000

Righto that it’s Linden Labs TOS that’s the bugaboo here; one of the prime points of the case was that the arbitration clause was buried and not under a separate heading.

Even if it’s one-sided, TOS can still be defended if it’s clear and concise.

-Rip

By: D-0ne

D-0ne — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:13:33 +0000

In terms most of us can understand… One sided contracts aren’t contracts. Basically, most TOS were never enforceable because they were so one sided.

Consumers have rights even if they only pay you 10$ a month for a service.

MMOs won’t die, they’ll just get TOS that are fair to customers. It’s a win for everyone.

By: And then things started to get ugly. at What Would Matt Do

And then things started to get ugly. at What Would Matt Do — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:11:51 +0000

[...] Second Labs doesn’t fair so well when holding their TOS up in front of a judge. From Raph: What it boils down to, though, is that [...]

By: Psychochild's Blog

Psychochild's Blog — Thu, 31 May 2007 21:59:58 +0000

TOS is in danger!…

Will this force Paddock to relocate?
Okay, so it isn’t an M59 event. But, it’s an issue that has been spreading around like wildfire:
http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/05/31/toses-in-trouble/
http://www.brokentoys.org/2007/05/31/wut-oh-part-one/
http:/…