next »

[The Grid Representation Foundation]

 The Grid Representation Foundation » Discussion » General Discussion (Moderator: admin)
 Legal Terms

[Shiina Petrov]

I would like to suggest this as a thread for legal terminology and how legal arguments in general flow. 

I think we might need more than one thread later, but this is so that laypeople (like me!) can try to collect jargon etc. in one place.

[Shiina Petrov]

I was very impressed by this post on SL Forums.  I think it could be a nice summary?
http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?p=2203508#post2203508

Unread  Today, 04:29 PM         #3409
Vye Graves
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 77
   
This is a mala fides action, flying in the face of the reasonable expectation of use, intended simply to profit by reselling the resources they are daring us to abandon. The response does not address "misuse" of sim resources. It in fact is most belligerent to people who don't misuse their openspaces, as they are generally the ones with no income derived from them.

We are using openspaces as they were provided to us, and as they were being used even before the last change went into effect. The extra we are using, namely more avatars per openspace, more prims per openspace, was GIVEN us by LL. The legal expectation is that we will be able to use what we purchased. The idea that we are somehow abusing what we have by using it is facetious.

If the openspaces were sold with the trust that we would not use them to their full potential, LL has the ability to cut script use, the number of avatars, the number of prims. Instead, they raise prices and attack non-profit endeavors on openspaces. This is a transparent move to retask hardware that the users bought for them, while keeping people who are willing to pay, regardless of the amount of "abuse".

It's really clumsy, and I expect this to be tested legally as LL has not granted us our reasonable expected use. It is no different than a landlord who charges large deposits and who once the property is rented makes the situation unlivable, so he can then get someone else's deposit. It's an old story, and a risky way of attaining capital.
Last edited by Vye Graves : Today at 05:01 PM.

[Shiina Petrov]

Reposting more from Vye on SL Forums again.  This is from the thread "Announcement Legal Issue."
http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=290684


Today, 10:46 AM         #4
Vye Graves
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 91
   
in this case it is about bad faith, and bait and switch.

if LL knew they were going to do this and continued to sell these, or worse, knew they would do this before they enacted the price decrease, then they were acting in bad faith (mala fides). Bait and switch is the marketing of a product or service with the knowledge that the offer cannot be sustained for a reasonable expectation of use, and once the consumer is locked in, forcing them to accept something else of lesser value or higher cost.

The excuse for the price change is the "abuse" of openspaces.

a) openspaces, while being abused in greater numbers, aren't being abused differently than before the original price change. The advertising of these openspaces implied abusive use, and they added prims and raised the avatar cap.

b) raising the cost of openspaces does nothing to address the abuse of openspaces, especially given they have the technical ability to adjust to the load now and limit avatar numbers, limit prim numbers, limit script use. Instead, they just raise the rent.

c) raising the cost of openspaces harms abusers the least, and those who use them appropriately the most. Those who use them appropriately are least likely to be earning a profit on them, and therefore will be less apt to pay the extra. Revoking the educational benefit is that much more excessive while not addressing actual use.

So, there's really no way to look at this price increase and not see it as being in bad faith. They have the ability to fix the problem, but they choose not to. They are making the situation caustic for NON-abusers, and retaining abusers who are apt to pay more. Obviously, this isn't about server use, this is about maximizing profit after the sale by changing what was offered.

This whole situation looks a lot like LL wanted an influx of cash to buy hardware, they invited a lot of people with incentives to buy that hardware for them with their setup fees, and now they want the hardware freed up to set it up again for other people. If that is the case, then there is no doubt that this action is across the line.

Last edited by Vye Graves : Today at 11:05 AM.