Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

So When Is LL gonna Start Making People HAve Payment Info Used To Sell On The MP??

Recommended Posts


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

From the LL TOS Section 4

You acknowledge that you will be exposed to various aspects of the Service involving the conduct, Content, and services of users, and that Linden Lab does not control and is not responsible or liable for the quality, safety, legality, truthfulness or accuracy of any such user conduct, User Content, or user services. You acknowledge that Linden Lab does not guarantee the accuracy of information submitted by any user of the Service, nor any identity information about any user. Your interactions with other users and your use and purchase of User Content or user services are entirely at your own risk.

From Section 5 of the LL TOS:

Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars.

So unless you are paying a merchant directly with your paypal account directly to their paypal account paypal offers no protection to you and LL doesn't have to make it up to you either as you agreed to this when you used SL. 

If you have a VIsa and use it to buy things in RL store, you are protected under whatever protection VIsa offers.  But if you use the visa to  get cash from an ATM and then use the cash in the store, visa offers you no protection.

LL will never allow direct payment to merchants because they make money when you buy lindens and the merchant sells them for RL money.  If they allowed direct payment, then that entire revenue stream would be cut off.

You read things and think they mean what you WANT them to mean not what they actually mean.  The TOS trumps every 'protection" you are alleging that PayPal offers because you agreed that LL has no liability to you in this regard when you created an account here.

Even if LL got complete identifying RL information on every person in SL, and you got ripped off they are not going to give it to you nor are they going to give you the lindens back or give you what you paid for.  So PIOF is useless to you.  You can argue the point until the cows come home, but you have so far not offered one valid reason to require PIOF for anybody other than something you've made up in your own mind and are so desperate to hold onto that you completely ignore the facts. 


Here is the one touchy phrase in this equation:

"Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars."

This is what I am not sure about because purchases can be made on the Market Place using PayPal or a Credit Card.  When you make a purchase on E Bay, your payment through PayPal does not go through E Bay.  It goes directly to the merchant.

But in the case of the Market Place, You can make a purchase using PayPal or a Credit Card.  You pay Linden Lab, not the seller.  Linden Lab transfers the funds to the seller.  It's been too dang long since I worked in retail mgt so I don't remember all the details, but basically speaking, when you sign up to receive payment via Credit Card you sign an agreement with the Credit Card Company that says essentially their  terms supersede your terms.  So it is interesting to note that section 5 only mentions using Lindens and does not mention purchases via pay pal or credit card.

The devil is in the details here but because LL makes a profit as the facilitator of the purchase they may not be completely immune.

I dealt several times with disputed charges and it was always a pain in the butt, but not every disputed claim flew with the CC company.  Again, the devil was in the details.  I think this one may really need a lawyer to decipher. I can see points on both sides of the equation.  Why does the TOS not mention Credit Cards and Paypal?  We know that Linden Labs attorneys always err on the side of caution.  That would be a huge oversight on their part.

 

But back to the other point, POIF still will not protect the buyer in and of itself in SL.

 

p.s. I removed my previous post cause I got to thinking about this a little more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

From the LL TOS Section 4

You acknowledge that you will be exposed to various aspects of the Service involving the conduct, Content, and services of users, and that Linden Lab does not control and is not responsible or liable for the quality, safety, legality, truthfulness or accuracy of any such user conduct, User Content, or user services. You acknowledge that Linden Lab does not guarantee the accuracy of information submitted by any user of the Service, nor any identity information about any user. Your interactions with other users and your use and purchase of User Content or user services are entirely at your own risk.

From Section 5 of the LL TOS:

Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars.

So unless you are paying a merchant directly with your paypal account directly to their paypal account paypal offers no protection to you and LL doesn't have to make it up to you either as you agreed to this when you used SL. 

If you have a VIsa and use it to buy things in RL store, you are protected under whatever protection VIsa offers.  But if you use the visa to  get cash from an ATM and then use the cash in the store, visa offers you no protection.

LL will never allow direct payment to merchants because they make money when you buy lindens and the merchant sells them for RL money.  If they allowed direct payment, then that entire revenue stream would be cut off.

You read things and think they mean what you WANT them to mean not what they actually mean.  The TOS trumps every 'protection" you are alleging that PayPal offers because you agreed that LL has no liability to you in this regard when you created an account here.

Even if LL got complete identifying RL information on every person in SL, and you got ripped off they are not going to give it to you nor are they going to give you the lindens back or give you what you paid for.  So PIOF is useless to you.  You can argue the point until the cows come home, but you have so far not offered one valid reason to require PIOF for anybody other than something you've made up in your own mind and are so desperate to hold onto that you completely ignore the facts. 


Here is the one touchy phrase in this equation:

"
Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars."

This is what I am not sure about because purchases can be made on the Market Place using PayPal or a Credit Card.  When you make a purchase on E Bay, your payment through PayPal does not go through E Bay.  It goes directly to the merchant.

But in the case of the Market Place, You can make a purchase using PayPal or a Credit Card.  You pay Linden Lab, not the seller.  Linden Lab transfers the funds to the seller.  It's been too dang long since I worked in retail mgt so I don't remember all the details, but basically speaking, when you sign up to receive payment via Credit Card you sign an agreement with the Credit Card Company that says essentially their  terms supersede your terms.  So it is interesting to note that section 5 only mentions using Lindens and does not mention purchases via pay pal or credit card.

The devil is in the details here but because LL makes a profit as the facilitator of the purchase they may not be completely immune.

I dealt several times with disputed charges and it was always a pain in the butt, but not every disputed claim flew with the CC company.  Again, the devil was in the details.  I think this one may really need a lawyer to decipher. I can see points on both sides of the equation.  Why does the TOS not mention Credit Cards and Paypal?  We know that Linden Labs attorneys always err on the side of caution.  That would be a huge oversight on their part.

 

But back to the other point, POIF still will not protect the buyer in and of itself in SL.

 

p.s. I removed my previous post cause I got to thinking about this a little more.


No, under the current TOS, it is completely buyer beware as it also says where I posted above they (LL) can remove "any content", and it doesn't explain what "any content" is.  It's just any content LL wishes to remove, even on innocent people.  What I was suggesting was IF SL went Paypal, then the TOS WOULD CHANGE obviously.  That is what I was talking about (about a better SL), but my point seems to be completely lost on some people.  I don't find it a particularly "good" business practice to deal with people who, like the OP said, are "ghosts".  Also, I can't think of too many lawyers who would take a case of stolen content on SL if it were a mere few hundred dollars.  The cost for the lawyer and paying courtroom time and all of that falls upon the seller, not LL or the buyer.  The seller would, in most cases, I'd suspect have to pay more for a lawyer than the amount of what they lost.  However, with Paypal, a seller can be banned, that's the main reason Paypal is better, but too many people want a "ghost" market and a buyer beware market because there is no transparency in SL in regards to sellers. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats pronbably just buy options for the shopper..just like buying lindens only you get the content and the lindens would go to the seller minus LL's cut..

i couldn't see them crediting pay pal accounts and credit cards with those realy tiny amounts..they want the cash out money too i'm sure..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:

thats pronbably just buy options for the shopper..just like buying lindens only you get the content and the lindens would go to the seller minus LL's cut..

i couldn't see them crediting pay pal accounts and credit cards with those realy tiny amounts..they want the cash out money too i'm sure..

Sure they could credit small amounts.  Ebay is full .99 cent items, tons of them.  Take tiny jewelry parts and beads for an example.  Buyer's usually buy a lot of .99 beads and then the shipping isn't very much, as those same strings of beads sold for .99 cents on Ebay are in stores for about $8 dollars a strand.  Anyhow, go visit eBay, there are tons and tons of .99 cent items and at buy it now prices, also.

  However, yes, in a civil case, the seller has to pay the court fees, the lawyer, all the expenses; there are no civil cases where a courtroom is paid for you.  Not to my knowledge.  In a civil case, a seller here on SL would have to pay.  If they win, then the court fees would have to reimbursed to them.  However, with legal copyrights, seller's stand a far better chance of winning.  That's why registering a logo or trademark for your designs would help seller's quite a lot in winning such cases, and also photoshop words directly on your creations with your logo, copyright, date created, all that stuff.  However, of course, the lawyers fees are not returned.  Lawyers cost a small fortune.  

Anyhow, I'm done with the thread and want to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mayalily wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

thats pronbably just buy options for the shopper..just like buying lindens only you get the content and the lindens would go to the seller minus LL's cut..

i couldn't see them crediting pay pal accounts and credit cards with those realy tiny amounts..they want the cash out money too i'm sure..

Sure they could credit small amounts.  Ebay is full .99 cent items, tons of them.  Take tiny jewelry parts and beads for an example.  Buyer's usually buy a lot of .99 beads and then the shipping isn't very much, as those same strings of beads sold for .99 cents on Ebay are in stores for about $8 dollars a strand.  Anyhow, go visit eBay, there are tons and tons of .99 cent items and at buy it now prices, also.

  However, yes, in a civil case, the seller has to pay the court fees, the lawyer, all the expenses; there are no civil cases where a courtroom is paid for you.  Not to my knowledge.  In a civil case, a seller here on SL would have to pay.  If they win, then the court fees would have to reimbursed to them.  However, with legal copyrights, seller's stand a far better chance of winning.  That's why registering a logo or trademark for your designs would help seller's quite a lot in winning such cases, and also photoshop words directly on your creations with your logo, copyright, date created, all that stuff.  However, of course, the lawyers fees are not returned.  Lawyers cost a small fortune.  

Anyhow, I'm done with the thread and want to move on.

i was talking about how LL would pay the seller when we may decide to buy market place content using a credit card or pay pal..

LL probably pays the seller in lindens..i wasn't talking about if visa or pay pal would transfer those tiny amounts..

i've had pay pal since they started up before they were with Ebay..i know how they work..

anyways..i was responding to Perrie with that stuff incase you thought i was responding about something else..it had nothing to do with court..just market place purchasing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:


Mayalily wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

thats pronbably just buy options for the shopper..just like buying lindens only you get the content and the lindens would go to the seller minus LL's cut..

i couldn't see them crediting pay pal accounts and credit cards with those realy tiny amounts..they want the cash out money too i'm sure..

Sure they could credit small amounts.  Ebay is full .99 cent items, tons of them.  Take tiny jewelry parts and beads for an example.  Buyer's usually buy a lot of .99 beads and then the shipping isn't very much, as those same strings of beads sold for .99 cents on Ebay are in stores for about $8 dollars a strand.  Anyhow, go visit eBay, there are tons and tons of .99 cent items and at buy it now prices, also.

  However, yes, in a civil case, the seller has to pay the court fees, the lawyer, all the expenses; there are no civil cases where a courtroom is paid for you.  Not to my knowledge.  In a civil case, a seller here on SL would have to pay.  If they win, then the court fees would have to reimbursed to them.  However, with legal copyrights, seller's stand a far better chance of winning.  That's why registering a logo or trademark for your designs would help seller's quite a lot in winning such cases, and also photoshop words directly on your creations with your logo, copyright, date created, all that stuff.  However, of course, the lawyers fees are not returned.  Lawyers cost a small fortune.  

Anyhow, I'm done with the thread and want to move on.

i was talking about how LL would pay the seller when we may decide to buy market place content using a credit card or pay pal..

LL probably pays the seller in lindens..i wasn't talking about if visa or pay pal would transfer those tiny amounts..

i've had pay pal since they started up before they were with Ebay..i know how they work..

anyways..i was responding to Perrie with that stuff incase you thought i was responding about something else..it had nothing to do with court..just market place purchasing..

Well, I thought I would bring up court here because 1) For a few hundred dollars lost, what lawyer would even touch your case?  I'd suspect the lawyer would simply tell you to stop selling on the internet.  2)  Even after the seller pays all the costs for the lawyer, the court room time, all of those fees, there is no guarentee they will even be reimbursed for their court costs because what if the copybotter is poor or a teenage.  Yes, they could garner future wages on that person, but not if the garnishing proves financial hardship to them or their family such as food and shelter and necessary items needed to live.  Also, if the person has no equitity in anything, there won't be much anyone would recover even if they won. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mayalily wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:


Mayalily wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

thats pronbably just buy options for the shopper..just like buying lindens only you get the content and the lindens would go to the seller minus LL's cut..

i couldn't see them crediting pay pal accounts and credit cards with those realy tiny amounts..they want the cash out money too i'm sure..

Sure they could credit small amounts.  Ebay is full .99 cent items, tons of them.  Take tiny jewelry parts and beads for an example.  Buyer's usually buy a lot of .99 beads and then the shipping isn't very much, as those same strings of beads sold for .99 cents on Ebay are in stores for about $8 dollars a strand.  Anyhow, go visit eBay, there are tons and tons of .99 cent items and at buy it now prices, also.

  However, yes, in a civil case, the seller has to pay the court fees, the lawyer, all the expenses; there are no civil cases where a courtroom is paid for you.  Not to my knowledge.  In a civil case, a seller here on SL would have to pay.  If they win, then the court fees would have to reimbursed to them.  However, with legal copyrights, seller's stand a far better chance of winning.  That's why registering a logo or trademark for your designs would help seller's quite a lot in winning such cases, and also photoshop words directly on your creations with your logo, copyright, date created, all that stuff.  However, of course, the lawyers fees are not returned.  Lawyers cost a small fortune.  

Anyhow, I'm done with the thread and want to move on.

i was talking about how LL would pay the seller when we may decide to buy market place content using a credit card or pay pal..

LL probably pays the seller in lindens..i wasn't talking about if visa or pay pal would transfer those tiny amounts..

i've had pay pal since they started up before they were with Ebay..i know how they work..

anyways..i was responding to Perrie with that stuff incase you thought i was responding about something else..it had nothing to do with court..just market place purchasing..

Well, I thought I would bring up court here because 1) For a few hundred dollars lost, what lawyer would even touch your case?  I'd suspect the lawyer would simply tell you to stop selling on the internet.  2)  Even after the seller pays all the costs for the lawyer, the court room time, all of those fees, there is no guarentee they will even be reimbursed for their court costs because what if the copybotter is poor or a teenage.  Yes, they could garner future wages on that person, but not if the garnishing proves financial hardship to them or their family such as food and shelter and necessary items needed to live.  Also, if the person has no equitity in anything, there won't be much anyone would recover even if they won. 

there are fines that make it worth it for content creators..and if it were a teen under the age..they go after the parents..

the responsible adult..just as if they were 16 years old broke a window in someones house..the parents are the ones that would have to pay..how thye settle that with their child is up to them..

they have a computer and internet..so they can't be too bad off..they would end up paying even is it were in payments..they do that here..when pitbulls killed my horse  the lady was already working two jobs to make ends meet..

still she has to pay 25.00 a month  until it is paid off..

law doesn't care if you are broke and on food stamps..they don't care if you are half dead from hunger..they don't care..

you don't escape penalties because of your financial situation..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:


Mayalily wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:


Mayalily wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

thats pronbably just buy options for the shopper..just like buying lindens only you get the content and the lindens would go to the seller minus LL's cut..

i couldn't see them crediting pay pal accounts and credit cards with those realy tiny amounts..they want the cash out money too i'm sure..

Sure they could credit small amounts.  Ebay is full .99 cent items, tons of them.  Take tiny jewelry parts and beads for an example.  Buyer's usually buy a lot of .99 beads and then the shipping isn't very much, as those same strings of beads sold for .99 cents on Ebay are in stores for about $8 dollars a strand.  Anyhow, go visit eBay, there are tons and tons of .99 cent items and at buy it now prices, also.

  However, yes, in a civil case, the seller has to pay the court fees, the lawyer, all the expenses; there are no civil cases where a courtroom is paid for you.  Not to my knowledge.  In a civil case, a seller here on SL would have to pay.  If they win, then the court fees would have to reimbursed to them.  However, with legal copyrights, seller's stand a far better chance of winning.  That's why registering a logo or trademark for your designs would help seller's quite a lot in winning such cases, and also photoshop words directly on your creations with your logo, copyright, date created, all that stuff.  However, of course, the lawyers fees are not returned.  Lawyers cost a small fortune.  

Anyhow, I'm done with the thread and want to move on.

i was talking about how LL would pay the seller when we may decide to buy market place content using a credit card or pay pal..

LL probably pays the seller in lindens..i wasn't talking about if visa or pay pal would transfer those tiny amounts..

i've had pay pal since they started up before they were with Ebay..i know how they work..

anyways..i was responding to Perrie with that stuff incase you thought i was responding about something else..it had nothing to do with court..just market place purchasing..

Well, I thought I would bring up court here because 1) For a few hundred dollars lost, what lawyer would even touch your case?  I'd suspect the lawyer would simply tell you to stop selling on the internet.  2)  Even after the seller pays all the costs for the lawyer, the court room time, all of those fees, there is no guarentee they will even be reimbursed for their court costs because what if the copybotter is poor or a teenage.  Yes, they could garner future wages on that person, but not if the garnishing proves financial hardship to them or their family such as food and shelter and necessary items needed to live.  Also, if the person has no equitity in anything, there won't be much anyone would recover even if they won. 

there are fines that make it worth it for content creators..and if it were a teen under the age..they go after the parents..

the responsible adult..just as if they were 16 years old broke a window in someones house..the parents are the ones that would have to pay..how thye settle that with their child is up to them..

they have a computer and internet..so they can't be too bad off..they would end up paying even is it were in payments..they do that here..when pitbulls killed my horse  the lady was already working two jobs to make ends meet..

still she has to pay 25.00 a month  until it is paid off..

law doesn't care if you are broke and on food stamps..they don't care if you are half dead from hunger..they don't care..

you don't escape penalties because of your financial situation..

 

That's because she had two jobs.  If the person ends up having no job, there isn't anything to win.  And, if they have no equity in anything, there isn't anything to win. 

As far as the parents having to pay, it's a possibility.   What I'm saying is in a civil case, rewards are only a possibility not a guarantee, and every state is different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mayalily wrote:


That's because she had two jobs.  If the person ends up having no job, there isn't anything to win.  And, if they have no equity in anything, there isn't anything to win. 

As far as the parents having to pay, it's a possibility.   What I'm saying is in a civil case, rewards are only a possibility not a guarantee, and every state is different. 

please don't act like you were there and know a thing about it when it comes to my case...i'm not gonna debate law with you..you believe what you want to believe..

you are looking for 100% sure fire answers that won't fail ever and nothing is sure fire 100% of the time..

and no she did not lose because she had two jobs..it's law here that owners are responsible for the damages their animals do to live stock if their animals get into other ranches and farms or other property..

if their dog kills my horse they are strapped with the debt..they don't just get off scott free for killing a $20,000 horse because they just happened to be unemployeed at the time..they strapped her with the debt..

she didn't win because i took it all the way to court and never settled or stopped and said it was not worth it..i had tons of complaints on her already..

she killed one of my babies and now she has a debt that will take her forever and a day to pay off..now she is reminded every month with a letter and envelope that she killed my baby..thats payment enough for me..

 

i'm off to bed..have a good day or night ..whatever it is where you are hehehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

From the LL TOS Section 4

You acknowledge that you will be exposed to various aspects of the Service involving the conduct, Content, and services of users, and that Linden Lab does not control and is not responsible or liable for the quality, safety, legality, truthfulness or accuracy of any such user conduct, User Content, or user services. You acknowledge that Linden Lab does not guarantee the accuracy of information submitted by any user of the Service, nor any identity information about any user. Your interactions with other users and your use and purchase of User Content or user services are entirely at your own risk.

From Section 5 of the LL TOS:

Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars.

So unless you are paying a merchant directly with your paypal account directly to their paypal account paypal offers no protection to you and LL doesn't have to make it up to you either as you agreed to this when you used SL. 

If you have a VIsa and use it to buy things in RL store, you are protected under whatever protection VIsa offers.  But if you use the visa to  get cash from an ATM and then use the cash in the store, visa offers you no protection.

LL will never allow direct payment to merchants because they make money when you buy lindens and the merchant sells them for RL money.  If they allowed direct payment, then that entire revenue stream would be cut off.

You read things and think they mean what you WANT them to mean not what they actually mean.  The TOS trumps every 'protection" you are alleging that PayPal offers because you agreed that LL has no liability to you in this regard when you created an account here.

Even if LL got complete identifying RL information on every person in SL, and you got ripped off they are not going to give it to you nor are they going to give you the lindens back or give you what you paid for.  So PIOF is useless to you.  You can argue the point until the cows come home, but you have so far not offered one valid reason to require PIOF for anybody other than something you've made up in your own mind and are so desperate to hold onto that you completely ignore the facts. 


Here is the one touchy phrase in this equation:

"
Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars."

This is what I am not sure about because purchases can be made on the Market Place using PayPal or a Credit Card.  When you make a purchase on E Bay, your payment through PayPal does not go through E Bay.  It goes directly to the merchant.

But in the case of the Market Place, You can make a purchase using PayPal or a Credit Card.  You pay Linden Lab, not the seller.  Linden Lab transfers the funds to the seller.  It's been too dang long since I worked in retail mgt so I don't remember all the details, but basically speaking, when you sign up to receive payment via Credit Card you sign an agreement with the Credit Card Company that says essentially their  terms supersede your terms.  So it is interesting to note that section 5 only mentions using Lindens and does not mention purchases via pay pal or credit card.

The devil is in the details here but because LL makes a profit as the facilitator of the purchase they may not be completely immune.

I dealt several times with disputed charges and it was always a pain in the butt, but not every disputed claim flew with the CC company.  Again, the devil was in the details.  I think this one may really need a lawyer to decipher. I can see points on both sides of the equation.  Why does the TOS not mention Credit Cards and Paypal?  We know that Linden Labs attorneys always err on the side of caution.  That would be a huge oversight on their part.

 

But back to the other point, POIF still will not protect the buyer in and of itself in SL.

 

p.s. I removed my previous post cause I got to thinking about this a little more.


There is no oversight... the TOS is perfectly clear.  LL has written it so that they are not responsible for anyone getting ripped off my another resident and you agree to that when you agree to the TOS.  In the case of a CC or PP being used, you are buying LL's services with your payment, LL provides you with that service so there's no recourse with either payment method, because you will have gotten what you paid for.  Because you used that service to purchase stolen merchandise from another user doesn't matter and neither your CC company nor PP can do a thing about it.  And, as per TOS, neither will LL.

Mayalily is correct, in that, it's buyer beware, which I assume is why there are people advocating for a warning.  Whether or not that would help, makes no difference... LL will never outright say that there may be stolen content on the MP... that would just be crazy.

...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mayalily wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

From the LL TOS Section 4

You acknowledge that you will be exposed to various aspects of the Service involving the conduct, Content, and services of users, and that Linden Lab does not control and is not responsible or liable for the quality, safety, legality, truthfulness or accuracy of any such user conduct, User Content, or user services. You acknowledge that Linden Lab does not guarantee the accuracy of information submitted by any user of the Service, nor any identity information about any user. Your interactions with other users and your use and purchase of User Content or user services are entirely at your own risk.

From Section 5 of the LL TOS:

Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars.

So unless you are paying a merchant directly with your paypal account directly to their paypal account paypal offers no protection to you and LL doesn't have to make it up to you either as you agreed to this when you used SL. 

If you have a VIsa and use it to buy things in RL store, you are protected under whatever protection VIsa offers.  But if you use the visa to  get cash from an ATM and then use the cash in the store, visa offers you no protection.

LL will never allow direct payment to merchants because they make money when you buy lindens and the merchant sells them for RL money.  If they allowed direct payment, then that entire revenue stream would be cut off.

You read things and think they mean what you WANT them to mean not what they actually mean.  The TOS trumps every 'protection" you are alleging that PayPal offers because you agreed that LL has no liability to you in this regard when you created an account here.

Even if LL got complete identifying RL information on every person in SL, and you got ripped off they are not going to give it to you nor are they going to give you the lindens back or give you what you paid for.  So PIOF is useless to you.  You can argue the point until the cows come home, but you have so far not offered one valid reason to require PIOF for anybody other than something you've made up in your own mind and are so desperate to hold onto that you completely ignore the facts. 


Here is the one touchy phrase in this equation:

"
Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars."

This is what I am not sure about because purchases can be made on the Market Place using PayPal or a Credit Card.  When you make a purchase on E Bay, your payment through PayPal does not go through E Bay.  It goes directly to the merchant.

But in the case of the Market Place, You can make a purchase using PayPal or a Credit Card.  You pay Linden Lab, not the seller.  Linden Lab transfers the funds to the seller.  It's been too dang long since I worked in retail mgt so I don't remember all the details, but basically speaking, when you sign up to receive payment via Credit Card you sign an agreement with the Credit Card Company that says essentially their  terms supersede your terms.  So it is interesting to note that section 5 only mentions using Lindens and does not mention purchases via pay pal or credit card.

The devil is in the details here but because LL makes a profit as the facilitator of the purchase they may not be completely immune.

I dealt several times with disputed charges and it was always a pain in the butt, but not every disputed claim flew with the CC company.  Again, the devil was in the details.  I think this one may really need a lawyer to decipher. I can see points on both sides of the equation.  Why does the TOS not mention Credit Cards and Paypal?  We know that Linden Labs attorneys always err on the side of caution.  That would be a huge oversight on their part.

 

But back to the other point, POIF still will not protect the buyer in and of itself in SL.

 

p.s. I removed my previous post cause I got to thinking about this a little more.


No, under the current TOS, it is completely buyer beware as it also says where I posted above they (LL) can remove "any content", and it doesn't explain what "any content" is.  It's just any content LL wishes to remove, even on innocent people.  What I was suggesting was IF SL went Paypal, then the TOS WOULD CHANGE obviously.  That is what I was talking about (about a better SL), but my point seems to be completely lost on some people.  I don't find it a particularly "good" business practice to deal with people who, like the OP said, are "ghosts".  Also, I can't think of too many lawyers who would take a case of stolen content on SL if it were a mere few hundred dollars.  The cost for the lawyer and paying courtroom time and all of that falls upon the seller, not LL or the buyer.  The seller would, in most cases, I'd suspect have to pay more for a lawyer than the amount of what they lost.  However, with Paypal, a seller can be banned, that's the main reason Paypal is better, but too many people want a "ghost" market and a buyer beware market because there is no transparency in SL in regards to sellers. 

First off... if you purchase stolen context you might be ignorant of that fact, but that doesn't make you innocent.  Say, in RL, you bought a lawn mower from the guy down the street... now later on, the police show up at your house, tell you the lawn mower was stolen and confiscate it.  Now, you could say you didn't know it was stolen and that would probable keep you out of jail yourself, but try getting the police to give you back the money you paid for it and I don't think you'll get very far.  You'd have to sue the person that sold you the stolen content to begin with... but, in SL, because you signed away your rights to do that (see my previous post), you're just out of luck.

Secondly, LL will never, ever go with an only Paypal payment system, so you can just forget about it.  They're also not going to change the TOS in a way that would make them liable for paying you if another resident rips you off, so there's another thing you can forget about.  You can say this is what they should do over and over again, but that is not going to make it any more of a reality.

...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:

the responsible adult..just as if they were 16 years old broke a window in someones house..the parents are the ones that would have to pay..how thye settle that with their child is up to them..

This is not necessarily the case, there are very specific criteria that need to be in place for a parent to be held liable for their children's actions and it's different from state to state.  Now, you can win a judgement against a minor and it will be good for a number of years, meaning you will be able to go after them once they become an adult.  Just saying.

...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

Here we go with another content theft thread.  The very first thing that shouts out to me in my mind is "Just how do you (Pheobe Avro) know that any content is stolen?"  The answer is, unless it's content and you have the original files used to make the content stored safely somewhere other than your inventory, you can't.  You can suspect that the content is stolen.  But suspicion is not enough........I see content all the time in SL that looks so identical to other content that I could almost swear someone copied someone else's content......the "almost" part is important.  What's more Linden Lab has the same problem.....they cannot identify stolen content any more than you or I.  The DMCA is the only way for the problem to be addressed as of today's technology.........and the only person who can file a DMCA take down is the creater of the content that has bee stolen.  It then leaves the problem to the real life court system where the parties can hash it out and get some resolution.  Placing the payment information on file restriction on people to "fix" this problem will do nothing (it won't do a thing for th mesh upload that is in place now either).  Anyone can use any form of payment information that is accepted by LL to get that PIOF in their profile (a stolen CC, or a parent's or friend's CC, a fake counterfeit or even an expired CC (none of which will be checked until it's actually used to purchase something).  It's nothing but some requirement that is going to piss a lot of people off....Needlessly.

 

For the record, I'm one who has long advocated the necessity for some form of user identification for the creation of any account (basic or premium).  Linden Lab does not see it my way so what's in place now is what we have....my choice to take or leave it.  I choose to take it but that does not mean I agree with it.  You're outrage at content theft is admirable.....but think of something that will help prevent it.  Imposing some requirement on perfectly good and honest creators is not productive........it's just another "rule" that doesn't do a thing.  How about verifiable real life identity for every user of SL?  That would go a long way toward making content theft in SL less likely (but, as everything concerning the Internet, there will by ways around it......a fact of life).

Exactly that! ^^

And...

As off as the OP is on nearly everything she has said, she does make a point that is something that nearly every other system including LL adheres to.  Anonymity, though good in the virtual world or other games, is not practical or prudent with business matters.  The MP is a business and if I was the legal advisor to SL, I would ask them to make everyone complete RL information to be a merchant.  Currently we have an honor system when signing up for SL but nothing is validated.

However, with that being said, I am seeing way too many legal opinions here and as far as I know, I am one of two attorneys on this board so please let me jump in and clear up some of the speculative debates.  The OP is far more wrong than right but that's not uncommon when someone is upset.  Much like we tell you to never say a word until your attorney is present since we all say stupid things at times we are upset.

Law is Law..It is up to interpretation but at no time is there a provision that says 'this is the way it should be". Speculation is for that and why speculation is best for discussion over drinks or on forums, so this is a good conversation to have here.

Given that one thing that most had right but the OP is way, way off on is that it is up to the owner and only up to the owner to protect your copyright.  This is the Law in all of the US and the EU and most of the world who has Copyright Treaties with the US and the EU.  There are two types of ownership, an individual or a company.  When content is owned by a company, any delegated employee of that company can file a copyright complaint and in the case of an individual, they can.  You can have one or the other or both.  When there is no owner, it becomes Public Domain and can no longer be protected by anyone. (though derivatives of said works can be protected).

Laws do not prevent crime.  They deter it at best but moreover, are there for YOU (yes again the owness is you) to be protected after the crime is committed.

Here is how you protect yourself and yes, this is not a suggestion, it is the Law.  If YOUR content is breached and being pirated, you file a take down notice.  Only the owner of the copyright can do this.  If they lack he competence or ambition where they need you to do their bidding, then get a power of attorney so you can.

I don't care if LL has their DNA and deed to their house, piracy as pointed out, from any digital source will happen unless, YOU the copyright owner takes the appropriate action to report it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could be.  but contract law 101 taught me to also be watchful of what isn't said.  i would lean toward a court ruling in favor of LL, but there is definitely an open door there to argue in favour of the consumer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

the responsible adult..just as if they were 16 years old broke a window in someones house..the parents are the ones that would have to pay..how thye settle that with their child is up to them..

This is not necessarily the case, there are very specific criteria that need to be in place for a parent to be held liable for their children's actions and it's different from state to state.  Now, you can win a judgement against a minor and it will be good for a number of years, meaning you will be able to go after them once they become an adult.  Just saying.

...Dres

If the crime is happening on a California server wouldn't California laws apply?since the crime took place in California?

If i set up a server from my home that sells pirated content then i would fall under the laws of my state..but if i use a server in another states jurisdiction to sell pirated or stolen content wouldn't i fall under those state laws?

If i rob a bank or get a speeding ticket in another state...I end up in court in the state the offense was committed..Not my state where i live..

from what i have read parents will either take responsibility or share it with their child if they were aware or unaware..thats if they fall  under california laws anyways..

and since a law has been broken wouldn't  there be a states attorney there as well on the side of the plaintiff or the one that filed?

i don't think this is a civil matter where someone is suing someone like they would because a tree has been dropping branches in someones pool and broke the pool liner and they are looking for that person to pay for their pool liner..something like that both would get a lawyer..

a law was broken with online piracy..a states attorney ended up in my case as well..all i did was make the complaint and they got involved because a law was broken..

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

could be.  but contract law 101 taught me to also be watchful of what isn't said.  i would lean toward a court ruling in favor of LL, but there is definitely an open door there to argue in favour of the consumer.

Well, people can set forth any argument they want in court if it isn't throw out outright.  I'm only saying that I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on, but then, I'm no expert. sorry-053.gif

...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ceka Cianci wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

the responsible adult..just as if they were 16 years old broke a window in someones house..the parents are the ones that would have to pay..how thye settle that with their child is up to them..

This is not necessarily the case, there are very specific criteria that need to be in place for a parent to be held liable for their children's actions and it's different from state to state.  Now, you can win a judgement against a minor and it will be good for a number of years, meaning you will be able to go after them once they become an adult.  Just saying.

...Dres

If the crime is happening on a California server wouldn't California laws apply?since the crime took place in California?

If i set up a server from my home that sells pirated content then i would fall under the laws of my state..but if i use a server in another states jurisdiction to sell pirated or stolen content wouldn't i fall under those state laws?

If i rob a bank or get a speeding ticket in another state...I end up in court in the state the offense was committed..Not my state where i live..

from what i have read parents will either take responsibility or share it with their child if they were aware or unaware..thats if they fall  under california laws anyways..

and since a law has been broken wouldn't  there be a states attorney there as well on the side of the plaintiff or the one that filed?

i don't think this is a civil matter where someone is suing someone like they would because a tree has been dropping branches in someones pool and broke the pool liner and they are looking for that person to pay for their pool liner..something like that both would get a lawyer..

a law was broken with online piracy..a states attorney ended up in my case as well..all i did was make the complaint and they got involved because a law was broken..

Wow... I was only referring to the small part of your post that I quoted.  I have no specific knowledge of California law, that's why I said it varies by state.  But I would find it very hard to believe that a parent would be held liable, in either criminal court or civil court, for their sixteen year old child breaking a window... unless it could be proven that they had put a brick in their child's hand and told them to throw it at that window.

The child, on the other hand, can definitely be held liable and will have to pay for it, but they can only be gone after for payment once they are an adult.  Again, I'm no expert, but that's what makes sense to me, considering what knowledge I do have.

Of course, this is way off topic... but I just found it interesting so, I stuck my nose in it.

...Dres

Edited for clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

the responsible adult..just as if they were 16 years old broke a window in someones house..the parents are the ones that would have to pay..how thye settle that with their child is up to them..

This is not necessarily the case, there are very specific criteria that need to be in place for a parent to be held liable for their children's actions and it's different from state to state.  Now, you can win a judgement against a minor and it will be good for a number of years, meaning you will be able to go after them once they become an adult.  Just saying.

...Dres

If the crime is happening on a California server wouldn't California laws apply?since the crime took place in California?

If i set up a server from my home that sells pirated content then i would fall under the laws of my state..but if i use a server in another states jurisdiction to sell pirated or stolen content wouldn't i fall under those state laws?

If i rob a bank or get a speeding ticket in another state...I end up in court in the state the offense was committed..Not my state where i live..

from what i have read parents will either take responsibility or share it with their child if they were aware or unaware..thats if they fall  under california laws anyways..

and since a law has been broken wouldn't  there be a states attorney there as well on the side of the plaintiff or the one that filed?

i don't think this is a civil matter where someone is suing someone like they would because a tree has been dropping branches in someones pool and broke the pool liner and they are looking for that person to pay for their pool liner..something like that both would get a lawyer..

a law was broken with online piracy..a states attorney ended up in my case as well..all i did was make the complaint and they got involved because a law was broken..

Wow... I was only referring to the small part of your post that I quoted.  I have no specific knowledge of California law, that's why I said it varies by state.  But I would find it very hard to believe that a parent would be held liable, in either criminal court or civil court, for their sixteen year old child breaking a window... unless it could be proven that they had put a brick in their child's hand and told them to throw it at that window.

The child, on the other hand, can definitely be held liable and will have to pay for it, but they can only be gone after for payment once they are an adult.  Again, I'm no expert, but that's what makes sense to me, considering what knowledge I do have.

Of course, this is way off topic... but I just found it interesting so, I stuck my nose in it.

...Dres

Edited for clarity.

oh sorry i was kind of going on about stolen content  or online piracy or online crime..hehehehe

the window thing was just an example that i was using whem May said something about what happens when it is a child or teen..

sorry that you thought i was going on about that window thing hehehehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Textures and prims, and now meshes get dated timestamps on them showing the moment they were uploaded, or rezzed, for prims, the first time. If a creator really has the issue of being copybotted the upload/creation/rezzed timestap should prove who created the item first. Requiring payement info would only reduce the amount of people selling legitimate stuff on sl. In turn reducing the amount of items purchased.

As far as inworld stores, they are disappearing. The marketplace is pushed "as the place to buy" in the browser, on dashboard, etc..  So much that  many of the inworld stores i use to go to have shut down. They have gone Marketplace only route. It's more affordable than land tier or rent.

Linden Labs has done a lot of bonehead policy changes in the last few years. A year and half ago i was spending $500, real us dollars a month, on SL.  I'm down to $25 in tier and a quarterly premium, and occasionly maybe $20 in lindens every four or five months. That money saved is being left in savings now so guess i should thank the Lindens for that. Last thing Linden Labs should do is further limit access to any of it's features.

I had an inworld shop and a xstreet merchant account that was moved to marketplace when lindens took it over. Then they threatened a listing fee on top of the commision. I pulled my items from the marketplace then. As did a lot of other people. Since they realized enacting that policy was bad news they didn't enforce it. I thought about setting up a new marketplace store a few times since. But  I won't bother. I don't trust Linden Labs ability to change policy on a lets try this basis. Requiring payment info to sell, on marketplace, won't stop the true thieves. What it will do is create another exodus. With the exodus goes the money. Hope you enjoy the world you are asking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ceka Cianci wrote:

Linkin Park was a real big boost as they were giving their music away back then and backing up what was going

 

was really cool when linkin park made their widget that u could put in ur fan page. i put on my myspace back in them days

i thought metallica went over the top at the time. i was a bit diassapointed about that bc they really cool band, like legend. but was ok that they not wanted to do like linkin park. is their music and they made it and they can do whatever they want with it. so just accept that me

i still buy their stuff tho. same linkin park. i just wear linkin park tshirts now tho (:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

Linkin Park was a real big boost as they were giving their music away back then and backing up what was going

 

was really cool when linkin park made their widget that u could put in ur fan page. i put on my myspace back in them days

i thought metallica went over the top at the time. i was a bit diassapointed about that bc they really cool band, like legend. but was ok that they not wanted to do like linkin park. is their music and they made it and they can do whatever they want with it. so just accept that me

i still buy their stuff tho. same linkin park. i just wear linkin park tshirts now tho (:

 

 

they were a good band but really losing being popular at that time because you had bands like POD and Disturbed and Linkin Park and Evanescence styles taking over..

plus Euro mixes and Freestyle doing mix cover collaborations..there was so much that they just got buried in the change of times..they saw a spot light and took it.. Napster..

they just couldn't compete with so many great bands showing up at that time..the internet was letting us hear music all over the world..Napster showed so much music that people had never heard before..so the world in music grew really fast at that time..like over night..hehehehe

a lot of people saw Met as them trying to get attention because they couldn't get it because their genre of music moved to hard rock rap style mixing and so much more..

A lot thought they should have took the creative highway looking to put out something fresh instead of going after their fans that took them out of the garage band days where they would have loved to have just been heard..

no they had to jump on the pay me for the stuff you already own wagon..like nobody had metalica by then that was downloading it?? most did already..we were their fans lol hehehehe

and those that never heard of them before were now hearing them lol

 

someone on their side leaked the demo to their song for the mission impossible soundtrack.. not one of us..they could have really went sky high if they would have supported the fans that loved them..sometimes you have to spend money to become immortal in the good light rather than immortal on the dark side lol

don't get me wrong ..they are a great band..but sometimes you have to really feel your fans and support them..because they would not be there if it wasn't for them..nobody does it on their own..a little giving back to your community would have been a good thing that went a long way for them..

but i understand they were probably all caught up in being rock stars and lost that what gottcha there feeling i guess..

Aaanyways..

here was the song that led them to Napster.. where they see all their stuff on download that most already had but wanted mp3's of it instead..this is what set them off lol

pretty boring huh?

 

just some examples of who they were  up against back then..

POD

Her comes the BOOM!!

Linkin Park - In the end

Evanescence

 

 

Napster Good!! Met baaaad!!

Kidding!!!  LOL i still listen to them.. it was interesting times thats for sure and they didn't walk away empty handed from it..people had heard of them that never had before..in more ways than one i guess lol =)

any publicity is good publicity..right? hehehe

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o.O

Ok, if you commit a tort or crime in state X but you yourself are in state Y - suit / prosecution can end up in a state X or Y court, or federal. Facts depending.

- Did you flee from X to Y?

- Where you in X when you did it?

- WHere you in Y when you did the crime in X?

etc...

 

The classic lawschool example is a person on the border between the US and Canada firing a gun and shooting someone on the other side.

- They're not subject to 3-4 possible courts. The US state they stood in, a US federal court, a Canadian court (and here its 3-4 depending on whether or not Canada has different jurisdictions for provincial / national).

Another example comes from old laws making it a crime to transport a woman across state lines for immoral purposes. :D

- Here the 'immoral conduct' might not be illegal in either state (such as for example, unwed intimate relations and interracial marriage - See the Mann Act), in which case they only end up in federal court.

Or it might be illegal in one and not the other. For civil law (getting sued) It won't really matter which you commited it in and which you're now in. You've got jurisdictional contacts to both now. For criminal law - the state you're in can and usually will extradite you to the state where you did the crime.

ps: I believe the 'transport across state lines' law used to be a way to get people who had abortions where it might be legal. But now that that is protected under federal law, states have tried to make similar state laws, but these violate the Privileges and Immunites clause of the US Constitution (freedom of movement).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ceka Cianci wrote:

Napster Good!! Met baaaad!!

Kidding!!!  LOL i still listen to them.. it was interesting times thats for sure and they didn't walk away empty handed from it..people had heard of them that never had before..in more ways than one i guess lol =)

any publicity is good publicity..right? hehehe

 

kinda (:

is always a backstory to these kinda things

metallica been doing it like 30 years now. like other bands who do it that long they been quite adaptable musically. like try new things and see what if. some the stuff been quite cool, others not so much. way more cool than uncool tho altogether

can say that napster maybe introduce the band to whole new generation but i dont think so, not really. the change ups and change downs in music style and direction done that more than anything for each new generation. like puppets, black, load and reload, st anger, symphony and the news. the napster tech just made it possible to dl stuff faster over slow connections like dialup. it wasnt like metallica didnt have any airplay. they had more grammys and music awards and sellout concerts and sales than any other mtl band at the time, still do. they didnt really need to be introduced to anyone 

wasnt till 2000 that the napster thing happened. metallica been going since 1981, way before that. their fans more forgiving as well bc of the long history together for many of them. metlheds not much into emo. most them just want to crank it, party hard and be staunch. so when metallica came out like they did and take on napster then most their oldbie fans understand that. like is part the ethos of that culture. dont mess with us dude. like have to walk it and not just sing about it

the universities that also got cited with napster found that about 40% of their traffic and storage space was dedicated to rips. so they went eep and change their policies about that. wasnt just metallica stuff. was heaps other ppls stuff as well

napster dudes gave metallica and then dr dre the finger tho. so it was all on after that. napster lose that punch up. didnt need to happen, but is how it goes sometimes when someone gives u the finger in that kinda culture

also wasnt like anyone absolutely needed to dl tracks for free if they had already bought them on phys media back then. was plenty of programs that u could use to make personal copies of them for ur mob player in them days. the same programs that allowed ppl to rip and ul tracks onto napster and them uni sites

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone that intends to upload products onto Marketplace should have to provide RL name & address.

LL can make the necessary cross checks with name & address attached to SL account...or PIOF data if supplied. (PIOF not necessary, just an additional cross-check) Once the identification has been approved by LL...they should issue that person with a serial number code. This serial number should been entered after the contents have been placed inside the MP "Magic box" and ready for upload/ or synching with their Marketplace store. If the serial number matches the name of the account and owner of Magic box ....then the contents are automatically uploaded to MP Store.

It also means as you're the owner o the non-Tfr " Magic Box" you are held repsonsible for the contents you place inside that box and upload onto Marketplace.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


16 wrote:


Ceka Cianci wrote:

Napster Good!! Met baaaad!!

Kidding!!!  LOL i still listen to them.. it was interesting times thats for sure and they didn't walk away empty handed from it..people had heard of them that never had before..in more ways than one i guess lol =)

any publicity is good publicity..right? hehehe

 

kinda (:

is always a backstory to these kinda things

metallica been doing it like 30 years now. like other bands who do it that long they been quite adaptable musically. like try new things and see what if. some the stuff been quite cool, others not so much. way more cool than uncool tho altogether

can say that napster maybe introduce the band to whole new generation but i dont think so, not really. the change ups and change downs in music style and direction done that more than anything for each new generation. like puppets, black, load and reload, st anger, symphony and the news. the napster tech just made it possible to dl stuff faster over slow connections like dialup. it wasnt like metallica didnt have any airplay. they had more grammys and music awards and sellout concerts and sales than any other mtl band at the time, still do. they didnt really need to be introduced to anyone 

wasnt till 2000 that the napster thing happened. metallica been going since 1981, way before that. their fans more forgiving as well bc of the long history together for many of them. metlheds not much into emo. most them just want to crank it, party hard and be staunch. so when metallica came out like they did and take on napster then most their oldbie fans understand that. like is part the ethos of that culture. dont mess with us dude. like have to walk it and not just sing about it

the universities that also got cited with napster found that about 40% of their traffic and storage space was dedicated to rips. so they went eep and change their policies about that. wasnt just metallica stuff. was heaps other ppls stuff as well

napster dudes gave metallica and then dr dre the finger tho. so it was all on after that. napster lose that punch up. didnt need to happen, but is how it goes sometimes when someone gives u the finger in that kinda culture

also wasnt like anyone absolutely needed to dl tracks for free if they had already bought them on phys media back then. was plenty of programs that u could use to make personal copies of them for ur mob player in them days. the same programs that allowed ppl to rip and ul tracks onto napster and them uni sites

 

 

don't get me wrong i think they made great music..i just think they made themselves look bad back then..it wasn't just kids at napster...there were a lot of old fans there also..old loyal fans..and also not only people at napster were reacting to them..Lar's was on tv and other places making himself and the band look bad to fans..

there was music from long long before metalica was around..S&M is one of my favorite releases..it was just cool hehehe

 

i love how they did ONE and Nothing else matters hehehe

 

 

but i can't help but think their stance hurt their fan base and them..they have two releases after napster..and you can see them changing hard in ST.Anger..

 

a lot had cassette and didn't have their stuff on CDs..there was not much software for that type of media..

 

remember in those days most CD's were just loaded with music that was recorded with tape rather than digital??  they were still throwing  tape quality music on CD and still charging for CD quality..

 

unless it was new and recorded with digital it was from tape quality..

 

it was like..do i buy music i already own on a new cd that has the same quality as tape and costs 20.00 or do i download an mp3 to get it onto my mp3 player?? that was my case..

 

what i really used it Napster for myself was that and to hear the music that DJ's were mixing up ..i loved the Euro mixes and the free style with older soul and R&B stuff put to fast beats..

 

nowdays metalica puts their old shows up for free download..also a lot of those artists that stood up with RIAA back then have changed their stance from what it was back then on the whole napster thing...

 

Metalica did hurt their fan base doing that with Napster and that is fact..and napster did change a lot of things with music..

sure some old fans may have stuck it out but they lost new and old fans back then..it wasn't that napster was making them famous like they had no air time or lacking in air time ..i wasn't saying that..

 

i'm just saying they could have had a great 2000 decade if they would have chose to stay out of it or backed up their fans rather than choose the way they took..they could have opened a site getting 10 cents on the dollar or whatever they asked and  it would have done great even when napster was around..

because all their fans and an even more increasing fan base that wwould have been created from it  would have supported them taking a stand on their side..with the way they already had a huge fan base it would have just grew that much more..they  could have afforded to take a stand with the way the internet and other media would have let them be seen  more than ever before..

instead Lars decided to be a comic..

At the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards, Ulrich appeared in a skit with host Marlon Wayans that blasted the idea of using Napster to share music. Marlon played a college student sitting in his dorm room listening to Metallica's "I Disappear". Ulrich walked in and asked for an explanation. On receiving Wayans' excuse that using Napster was just "sharing", Ulrich retorted that Marlon's idea of sharing was "borrowing things that were not yours without asking." He called in the Metallica road crew, who proceeded to confiscate all of Wayans' belongings, leaving him almost nude in an empty room. Napster creator Shawn Fanning responded later in the ceremony by presenting an award wearing a Metallica shirt, saying, "I borrowed this shirt from a friend. Maybe, if I like it, I'll buy one of my own.

napster went down in 2001 and metalica had problems that woke them up and made them see they were caught up..

 

they lost their bass player jason newsome right around then to other problems..not saying napster had anything to do with that..but he added to the pile in a big way..

 

wanna see results of napster and other pressures they felt after ..just watch the movie Some kind of Monster  they made..they were messed up and were doing things to get back to that garage band as i had said many times before that they had forgotten about..in fact in video two right at the start the first person says.."the idea is it should sound like a band  getting together in a garage for the first time..only that band is Metalica"..

 

i mean they had gotten a therapist for the whole band back then..they knew what fans were saying to them and even if they won't admit to it..they didn't have to..other things screamed it..i'm not sure if that's why they made the movie..to say hey we heard you..watch this!! \o/ hehehehe

just think it was neat that they did hear people and did try to do something about it..

fans made them take a look at themselves and that's a good thing  for them and us i think =)

 

they could have just ignored it instead of really analyzing it like they did..

 

then they released ST.Anger

 

Since the Napster ordeal, Ulrich was quoted by LAUNCHcast as having some regrets:

 

"I wish that I was more...you know, I felt kind of ambushed by the whole thing because I didn't really know enough about what we were getting ourselves into when we jumped. [...] We didn't know enough about the kind of grassroots thing, and what had been going on the last couple of months in the country as this whole new phenomenon was going on. We were just so stuck in our controlling ways of wanting to control everything that had to do with Metallica. So we were caught off guard and we had a little bit of a rougher landing on that one than on other times than when we just blindly leaped. But you know, I'm still proud of the fact that we did leap... and I took a lot of hits and it was difficult."

i never downloaded anything i did not already have already..the only other things i did download was from artists that were trying to be heard and DJ's wanting to get heard..

Metalica knows they messed up..and that's ok..we all do..i can feel for them for the ones that were stealing from them by getting music for free..i think they deserved that money..but i just think they made it worse by leaping in as Lar's said..rather than handling it another way..

still i can't help but love their music..and S.K.O.M. showed they felt it..that's remorse enough for me..i let go of being angry at them a  long time ago..i never could hold a grudge anyways LOL

still it's neat to remember back then..

i didn't know until last year that Shawn fanning had been a part of facebook..i was like wow..i remember him popping into the Napster chat channle at times LOL

scary hehehehe

ETA: Sorry for the late edit but i felt like watching S.K.O.M. again..hehehe..i figured if anyone wanted to watch it they could check it out..just click on the video and go to the site and all 18 parts are there..or maybe it's on hulu even..Anyways here is the first one..i think it really shows just how lost they were before napster and a few other things and how they changed as a band..it was a good documentary.. i have to say it felt good to watch it again and it feels better watching it this time then back when it came out..i can relate more with a lot of their problems since i am older now than back then..

so much so that i went and bought their last two releases a few moments ago =) we all get lost and i can feel that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...