Comments on: Class action lawsuit leveled against Second Life’s Linden Lab

By: Informed consent for medical procedures: the use of virtual environments

Informed consent for medical procedures: the use of virtual environments — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:41:50 +0000

[...] The same episode of Future Tense also has a short interview with me on the media hype cycle with virtual worlds, their role in education and the precedents likely to be set by the pending class action against Linden Lab on intellectual property grounds. [...]

By: The killer awoke before dawn « Second Life Shrink

The killer awoke before dawn « Second Life Shrink — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:39:10 +0000

[...] Notes, and there’s no shortage of comment around the SL blogosphere (like here, here and here). In such circumstances any opinion I care to offer is bound to be superfluous, as well as being [...]

By: iheartsl.com Second Life’s largest community blog

iheartsl.com Second Life’s largest community blog — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:51:46 +0000

[...] blog titled “Enough”. In a month where Linden Labs are apparently going to be sued in a Class Action for basically breaching their duty of care to content creators in Second Life, by allowing Thieves [...]

By: Lisa Oratz

Lisa Oratz — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:18:06 +0000

Class action suit brough against Linden Lab seeking to hold it responsible for infringement of in-world items by its users

By: Jumpman Lane

Jumpman Lane — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:07:21 +0000

I know for a fact that Bimbo Cheerleader and SexGen content was stolen andsold for a discount by content thieves. Yet, what about Redgrave skins,whichwere stolen by Sex Gen Land managers and passed all around the grid and the Eros empire all spring andsummer. So much for the moral high ground. Publicity Stunt! We back Linden Lab. We support Second Life. We wont buy Eros crap (as IF we did anymore) whether they win or lose! Yay Linden lab! Boo Eros!

By: pixpol

pixpol — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:43:18 +0000

My blog's done some reporting on this, but nothing as thorough as yours. I'm in the camp that tends to see this as a thinly-veiled power play from a few major content creators to try and squeeze out competition from smaller future-competitors.

It's very similar to how AM Band radio managed to temporarily squeeze out FM Band through litigation.

By: Lisa Oratz

Lisa Oratz — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:18:06 +0000

Class action suit brough against Linden Lab seeking to hold it responsible for infringement of in-world items by its users

By: Jumpman Lane

Jumpman Lane — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:07:21 +0000

By: pixpol

pixpol — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:43:18 +0000

It's very similar to how AM Band radio managed to temporarily squeeze out FM Band through litigation.

By: TateruNino

TateruNino — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:07 +0000

An excellent point, and well-made.

I believe the core of the case, however, is not whether copying has taken place or not - or the feasibility of same, but whether Linden Lab has correctly complied with its legal obligations, once notified of infringement.

That's the takeaway I get from the complaint document: The assertion that the Lab has failed to comply with the legal requirements from that key point in time.

I can check with the plaintiffs' legal counsel about that, if anyone's interested.

I think the Lab will essentially put the TOS on trial again (as they did previously) as a part of their defense. I'm not sure that will work any better this time around than last, however.

By: Signless

Signless — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:23:02 +0000

Tateru, your example would seem to hold water, save for one thing. Participating in Second Life is a lot like climbing into a boxing ring. There are risks *inherent* in such activities. Signing a contract that holds your opponent blameless in case he breaks your nose in such an instance is merely a way to protect yourself from civil liability. There is no criminal assault involved in boxing. So...there's no legal, criminal violation that's occurred.

Go beyond that...because you're not entering into a contract with your opponent in that case. You're entering into a contract with the boxing *venue*.

Apply that to Second Life. The very *nature* of both the server-side applications and the client is *designed* to allow copying to occur. It has to be that way. That's how data is transferred and interpolated from one machine to another.

The permissions system can be seen as a way that LL has acted, and continues to act in good faith to protect the content of individual creators. If people violate that through exploits or hacks, you're going to have a tough time selling people the idea that such activity is the fault of LL.

By: TateruNino

TateruNino — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:38:07 +0000

That's certainly closer -- but it isn't that easy. I mean, if it were possible to actually legally sign away your obligations under the DMCA, most everyone would do it, from YouTube to Facebook.

I consider clauses similar in construction to this a bit of a cheat actually. Many of them seek to reduce your rights and remedies, which they cannot technically do -- but they can *functionally* do it if they convince you that they did.

To knock up a quick example, you sign a contract that holds me blameless and to have no liability for harm to your person. Then I break your nose. Can you charge me with assault? Sure can. Can I be fined for causing you that injury, even though we have an agreement? Absolutely.

Did you violate your contract with me? No.

Because a clause that violates law has no force. It might influence our behavior by convincing us that we have no recourse, thus influencing us to inaction, but it doesn't hold water legally.

With that specific clause in 3.2, it holds *some* water. The Lab disclaims liability for anything that it lawfully does or lawfully fails to do with respect to your copyrights and other intellectual property rights. And that's quite allowable.

The question is if it has acted (or failed to act) in an unlawful manner according to USA's intellectual property laws -- if it has, the clause has no force in that regard. Whether it has or not is for a court to decide -- and that's what the court is for, ultimately.