Jump to content

Failed delivery


Ellen Deka
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2328 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I bought a preloaded couple dance ball and did not receive the purchase.
After paying in the inworld shop I got the message that the object is out of stock. I paid L$ 12.000 and got nothing

I made a ticket at the customersupport of the shop and did not get a reply.

Another resident had the same problem with another Dance Ball. She spend L$ 18.000 and got nothing. And no reply from support centre. And that was two weeks ago.

What else can we do now ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the seller has staff for customer issues ..won't reply

hope for the best...

most people forget it is only a reseller... as far i know nothing in the store is own creation, all dances are for sale at the original creators too.

go for another brand dancemachine, it's more versatile in use, (wearable)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Alwin Alcott wrote:

the seller has staff for customer issues ..won't reply

hope for the best...

most people forget it is only a reseller... as far i know nothing in the store is own creation, all dances are for sale at the original creators too.

go for another brand dancemachine, it's more versatile in use, (wearable)

Seller has no staff. There is only him.

 

AR sent to LL about this guy and I Informed the creators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

This is going on for 3 months now. I know that AR's has been send to LL about this fraud and nothing happens.
And still people buy preloaded  danceballs, they spend a lot of money and they receive nothing and no refund.

I switched to a different dance system and I advice everyone to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is the answer ot Second Life support  :

Thank you for contacting Second Life Support. I am sorry to hear that you've had an issue with a transaction with another Second Life user.

The Second Life economy functions on connections between creators and customers such as yourself. Much as the Internet allows customers to find the products they want, Second Life exists to allow individuals to share their creations and services with those who wish to purchase and enjoy them. As a result, the transaction between residents is a personal one -- direct and without a middle man. When purchasing content or making other transactions such as land rentals within Second Life, you as a customer create an agreement with the person from whom you've purchased. As such, the only person who can assist with the product or service that you've purchased is the other party in your agreement -- the seller.

Contacting the merchant directly is the best and only way to resolve a problem with a purchased item or service.

Please contact us again if you need assistance with any new issues.
Enjoy your Second Life.

It is just going on. The list of people who spend L$ 10.000 or more and did not receive their purchase is getting longer and longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine that, if a company knowingly allows their system to be used for fraud, then the company, along with the fraudster, has a legal responsibility to those who were defrauded. This sounds like just such a thing. It seems to me that legal action could be successful.

However, the immediate course of action would be to get together with other victims and explain the whole thing to LL. If they won't do anything, then act against LL in RL, but tell them first. - and keep records of everything.

Is it any wonder why so many of us are so dead against LL as a company? Little bits are one thing, but 10,000L$ and 18,000L$ are something else again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine that, if a company knowingly allows their system to be used for fraud, then the company, along with the fraudster, has a legal responsibility to those who were defrauded.

Don't know about this, not a lawyer either. Would imagine things will change on precedent, but SilVal as a whole has incentive to avoid this scenario (much like their lack interest in fixing DMCA Safe Harbour). But it does provoke a question or two...

At what point does the effort/reward curve tilt too far the other way? What stops SL from cannibalising its own userbase for profit?

Just a thought, if it's too OT then am happy letting this play around in my head. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine that, if a company knowingly allows their system to be used for fraud, then the company, along with the fraudster, has a legal responsibility to those who were defrauded.

Don't know about this, not a lawyer either. Would imagine things will change on precedent, but SilVal as a whole has incentive to avoid this scenario (much like their lack interest in fixing DMCA Safe Harbour). But it does provoke a question or two...

At what point does the effort/reward curve tilt too far the other way? What stops SL from cannibalising its own userbase for profit?

Just a thought, if it's too OT then am happy letting this play around in my head.
:)

Sheesh! You took out the question I was about to answer just before I clicked the Reply button. My answer was going to be, because most people are not thieves :) (The question was about creators).

It just seems to me that, if someone has a system set up to steal amounts of US$40 and US$72 (the 10kL$ and 18kL$ mentioned in this thread) from unsuspecting victims, and the operator of the system it happens on (LL) knows about it because they have been informed, but do nothing about it, then they are complicit in the theft and are legally financially liable. That's what any sensible law should be, and I'm sure that's what the law is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, yes. I realised that obviously most people in SL create through desire, not profit-seeking. I removed some content in my post to avoid... giving the wrong impression and maybe-sounding like I was advocating things that I was not.


Phil Deakins wrote:

That's what any sensible law should be, and I'm sure that's what the law is.


Oh Phil, Phil Phil Phil. You may have been molly-coddled by our fairly robust consumer protection and anti-fraud legislation which is based on the 'common sense' and 'reasonable expectation' of the consumer regarding misinformation/representation.

My understanding is that Californian law differs pretty substantially, esp. when the fraud is commited using game tokens. Think there's a few more battles before this even becomes a realistic legal challenge (but again, not well-versed). The cards are stacked this way for good reason, and our provider is not the only one playing this game of Pass the Buck. Especially not the biggest.

For this reason, it's the social (trust/mistrust) and micro-economic (proliferation of scams in the ecosystem) effects that interests me specifically. The legal system (in our jurisdiction as well) is not playing catch-up very quickly.

Again, sorry about the edits. Economics is a toughie, feels like I'm speaking in riddles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, the seller is not a creator but a reseller.  When I bought a preloaded danceball I got a message from the vendor saying that the goods were not in stock. I made a ticket and never got an answer nor a refund.

I was told that the reseller has RL issues. Ok, that can happen but the least he could do is to take care of a refund in case of a non-delivery.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since others are involved and this isn't just a one off, and if we seem to be talking about who I think we are talking about. Then I would think contacting the original creators would\should be worthwhile.

Purchases of their animations are being made and not delivered then this would surely break whatever even minimal agreement they will have made allowing resale of their goods, breaking that agreement with them. They should therefore be able to DMCA the reseller because they are making a profit off their name outside of the agreement made about reselling their goods, and doing so in their name.

The longer this goes on, the worse it is for everyone including the animation makers who's work is being resold and not delivered.

If the owner of the reselling business is too unwell to deal with their business then I really hope they make a speedy recovery, but in the meantime they must be hoping the damage to their reputation and those people who's work they are reselling is limited and quickly, even if that means by being DMCA'ed by the people whos goods they are reselling.

Disclaimer I am not a legal expert or anything this is just my opinion, but I can't see a flaw to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ina Fairport wrote:

Just for the record, the seller is not a creator but a reseller.  When I bought a preloaded danceball I got a message from the vendor saying that the goods were not in stock. I made a ticket and never got an answer nor a refund.

 

I was told that the reseller has RL issues. Ok, that can happen but the least he could do is to take care of a refund in case of a non-delivery.

 

 

 

Then they've been having RL issues for a very long time.  There is a long history of (unresolved) complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely by now the original creators are aware of what is going on here. 

It is possible that this person has no agreement with any of the creators and is just saying he sells preloaded dance balls when he is actually just ripping people off.  If that's the case, I don't think a DMCA would work since he isn't copying their work, just using their names. 

While other legal action, such as a law suit, to make him stop is possible, it probably would be hugely expensive, especially if the creators and the thief live in different countries.

The lesson here is not to buy from resellers when you can buy from the original creators.  These dance balls are not hard to load with dances, in fact most of the time you just put the animations in the edit contents along with a notecard provided by the animation creator or available at the shop where you buy the dance balls. 

While I haven't priced the loaded dance balls against buying the ball and animations yourself, my guess is you can save some money since you aren't paying someone to load them for you and a profit for a third party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the person at least had a agreements because he sold loaded danceballs and dance packs for lot of big creators for many years, and still today. The animations at the original store were mostly no trans, and he had it in his balls, so it must been a agreement in one or other way.

This issue isn't new, i had it a few years ago already, bought it and failed.

That time he still had staff. But in spite of all proof no redelivery. He even couldn't see the delivery from his terminal but he got the money.

Biggest problem is he is one of te very few ( as far i know) resellers of the most known, but old, couple dance machine...so lot of people will still go there. More or less happens with another dance seller... H. .... vanished too, but still selling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Surely by now the original creators are aware of what is going on here. 

It is possible that this person has no agreement with any of the creators and is just saying he sells preloaded dance balls when he is actually just ripping people off.  If that's the case, I don't think a DMCA would work since he isn't copying their work, just using their names. 

While other legal action, such as a law suit, to make him stop is possible, it probably would be hugely expensive, especially if the creators and the thief live in different countries.

The lesson here is not to buy from resellers when you can buy from the original creators.  These dance balls are not hard to load with dances, in fact most of the time you just put the animations in the edit contents along with a notecard provided by the animation creator or available at the shop where you buy the dance balls. 

While I haven't priced the loaded dance balls against buying the ball and animations yourself, my guess is you can save some money since you aren't paying someone to load them for you and a profit for a third party.

DMCA covers things like brand names being used in empty box scams doesn't it?

Harley Davison, Disney whatever.... so why not the SL animation store brands? or even more so the dance system companies good name?

And honestly in a situation like this I would issue the takedown notice and worry about the legal arguments later, because if the situation is as described. the reseller would want their store shut sooner rather than later in their absence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:

And honestly in a situation like this I would issue the takedown notice and worry about the legal arguments later, because if the situation is as described. the reseller would want their store shut sooner rather than later in their absence.


DMCA - Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It deals with copyright and its usage online, as well as enforcement across wires.

Would caution against making false DMCA claims as legal liabilities are attached to doing so. This isn't a copyright issue, it's trading standards. The only regulatory body I can see that would oversee this is the Better Business Bereau (I'm not American, don't know consumer rights over there), to which LL aren't accredited. I doubt - unless the reseller's business is a registered legal entity - the BBB are even likely to investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't it a copyright issue once permission is withdrawn for the not unreasonable reason people's money is being taken and nothing received. In just the same way empty box sellers using pictures of another product are taken down. The situations would seem to be the same. Furthermore there would seem to be no legal risk anyway because doing so is in the resellers interests assuming from what has been said their health is preventing them manage their store

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, losing some content. Was my concern in this thread, will attempt to be more careful and - sadly - can't link outwards.

Best I can do is suggest you try researching yourself - but Copyright doesn't extend to business practice, reputation or customer expectations. The closest you could expect would be a cease and desist (C&D) order - designed to prevent abuse of a suppliers' good faith - but my reading of the thread so far is that the creators at the top are unlikely to go this route (and it would have to be done at the top of the chain).

The liability for false DMCA claims is legal perjury, lying within a court of law. Seriously, don't do this, even if you think you're helping.

What you appear to be talking about is some consumer-led protection to improve marketplace (no big M) trust and remove bad actors. That's exactly what trading standards is for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2328 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...