Ziggy21 Slade Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Gadget Portal wrote: Purchasing an item on the marketplace with US dollars via PayPal and/or credit card gives it a US dollar value. Common sense, really. You'd have to be an idiot to think the TOS overrides consumer protection laws for purchaes made with PayPal or credit card. Purchases in-world can be argued a bit more. And yet those same consumer protection laws havent been used to stop sales of breedables, might this be because no law has been broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilyra Chardin Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Thank you Gadget. Ziggy, when you purchase an item on Marketplace using paypal with US dollars (which IS the definition of legal tender) it negates any notion that currency and transactions are "game money." Further, even if you use linden dollars for that purchase, the item price is given in an equivalent legal tender currency, US Dollars (same as casino tokens would be,). The question of whether there is a legal precedence that US law overrides TOS implies that a purchase online with US dollars is unique, which it is not. Purchasing "cartoon" items on marketplace falls under the same existing laws as any web-based purchases of any software, electronic media, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 I didn't say they were illegal. I said purchases on the MP use real money and have to obey real laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rya Nitely Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 It must be that huge MP frontpage ad that triggered this thread. What Ziggy says is right. Breedables are popular because they're fun. Most people who own them don't even know how to sell them and just breed for fun. Many people get excited when they breed a worthless coat or trait simply because that is the level of their game and what they were aiming for. And yes, don't knock something you haven't tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Harbinger Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Ziggy21 Slade wrote: Breedables are not 'investment operations' and are not presented as such Returns are not even an essentail part of the game and are not paid by subsequent investors. just by other people in the game. The organisation running the scheme does not aim to or pretend to earn profits which it will return to its customers. Users are not enticed by offerings of higher returns than other investments All that is required to keep the game going is a flow of money, not an ever increasing flow. It would be hard for you to be more wrong! It would only be possible if Ilyra agreed with your argument above. While 'breedables' are indeed not any form of 'Ponzi scheme', they do flirt with a 'pyramid scheme' by definition, but they really aren't that either. They are more like Cabbage Patch Dolls or Beanie Babies or Magick cards, etc. They are the latest exercise machine, diet, or household gadget that, if you "call now" you can double your order and save a value of $150; as long as you pay the extra shipping and handling. In short, 'breedables' are simply capitalism at work, albeit capitalism in its lowest form; that which feeds at the bottom of the gene pool. But hey, it's just business, right? With regard to the question of monetary jurisdiction, it is risible to argue that Linden Dollars are not based on their proportional value in US Dollars. When one can purchase virtual goods or services with, not only Lindens that may be acquired with legal US tender, but via PayPal (real world bank account or CC), then I can assure you that those purchases fall under to the commerce laws that pertain to transactions with that legal tender. I would point you to a relevant case: However, Second Life has shown a legal example which may indicate that the developer can be in part held responsible for such losses. Second Life at one stage, offered and advertised the ability to "own virtual land", which was purchased for real money. In 2007, Marc Bragg, an attorney, was banned from Second Life; in response he sued the developers for thereby depriving him of his land, which he – based on the developers' own statements – "owned". The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which Bragg was re-admitted to Second Life. The details of the final settlement were not released, but the word "own" was removed from all advertising as a result. (It should be noted that Bragg purchased his land directly from the developers, and thus they were not an uninvolved third party in his transactions.) Link I would submit that the moral of this story is: Money is what you say it is, a fool and his money are soon parted, and before you dismiss someone as being 'wrong', you had be damned sure that you're right. Hold that thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Gadget Portal wrote: I didn't say they were illegal. I said purchases on the MP use real money and have to obey real laws. and the point of saying that was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Ilyra Chardin wrote: Thank you Gadget. The question of whether there is a legal precedence that US law overrides TOS implies that a purchase online with US dollars is unique, which it is not. Purchasing "cartoon" items on marketplace falls under the same existing laws as any web-based purchases of any software, electronic media, etc. So please let us know when you start your legal action against breedable creators - I will be watching with interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Adrian Harbinger wrote: With regard to the question of monetary jurisdiction, it is risible to argue that Linden Dollars are not based on their proportional value in US Dollars. When one can purchase virtual goods or services with, not only Lindens that may be acquired with legal US tender, but via PayPal (real world bank account or CC), then I can assure you that those purchases fall under to the commerce laws that pertain to transactions with that legal tender. I agree, I really didn't want to get bogged down with this 'is it real currency argument' because I don't think it has any relevance, if breedables were really breaking any consumer protection laws they would have been stopped already even if we were trading with jellybeans. Ilyra claimed that Linden Dollars were legal tender which they are not and I think that had to be pointed out. Adrian Harbinger wrote: In short, 'breedables' are simply capitalism at work, albeit capitalism in its lowest form; that which feeds at the bottom of the gene pool. But hey, it's just business, right? I like this so much, I think I am going to put it in my profile! :smileyhappy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 Ziggy21 Slade wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: I didn't say they were illegal. I said purchases on the MP use real money and have to obey real laws. and the point of saying that was? Because some ninny came into the thread and started acting like that wasn't the case. I just felt it needed to be corrected, even though it's not so relevant to the original topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 When this one stops breathing I'd like to vote that we go after everyone that makes an item once and then continues to sell that item forever! Affiliate programs and builder packs where people can buy a thing, sell it to someone else who can then make something out of it to sell it to another person who might be able to sell their creation in an affiliate program. It sounds pyramid-ish to me. We should all have to make a thing from scratch every time and never allow anyone else to sell it. Down with anything recurring, subscription, membership or pay-as-you-go! If you have a product with ongoing costs, you're doing it wrong. Sorry, had to. The real evil in this world is tele-marketing, selling car insurance during dinner time is just not acceptable and bad for the digestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted February 28, 2012 Author Share Posted February 28, 2012 Dartagan Shepherd wrote: The real evil in this world is tele-marketing, selling car insurance during dinner time is just not acceptable and bad for the digestion. I absolutely agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene Erlanger Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Ilyra Chardin wrote: Does this fit the exact definition of a ponzi or pyramid scheme - no. But it's close enough. And while not everyone is hyping this as a means of earning an SL living, enough are in various groups and circles all over SL to raise these concerns. Caveat Emptor It's the same as opening your own Shop or a Mall or buying sims and turning it into a rental business......there's no guarantees of profits for any of those. In some cases investing in breedables is less of a monetary risk than the examples i gave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Harbinger Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Ziggy21 Slade wrote: So please let us know when you start your legal action against breedable creators - I will be watching with interest That comment is equivalent to saying, "In case of nuclear attack, run in here, it's never been hit." First of all, Ziggy, I think that your rather condescending and snarky tone here does little to bolster your faulty arguments here. Secondly, you can play the semantics game all you like, but I'm pretty sure that if you stole a bunch of poker chips from a Vegas casino, a dollar value would be assigned to your larceny charges. Those plastic chips are representative of legal tender within the venue of the casino and can be readily converted to legal tender both inside and outside of the casino. This is an apt parallel to the function that Linden Dollars serve. They may be traded in and out of Second Life for real US dollars, Yes, Euros, what have you. You can buy them with dollars and sell them for dollars. They are as much legal tender as a bank check, a coupon, stock, etc. I have already stated my view in regard to legal vs ethical issue of the "Breedable" franchises within SL so I am not going to discuss that any further. I simply want to point out to you the obvious fact (supported by the real world precedent I provided in my earlier post which you seem to have dismissed) is that Linden Dollars are equal to their conversion rate to real world US dollars. Just because few people are willing to take a $4.75 grievance to court, it doesn't mean the facts change. Imagine if that grievance was in the millions of Lindens/thousands of US dollars. I am pretty sure that if you were the victim of some SL scam or fraud that involved such sums, you would have a very different view on the matter. A tiny speck of poison won't kill you, but that doesn't mean it's not poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilyra Chardin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Rene Erlanger wrote: Ilyra Chardin wrote: Does this fit the exact definition of a ponzi or pyramid scheme - no. But it's close enough. And while not everyone is hyping this as a means of earning an SL living, enough are in various groups and circles all over SL to raise these concerns. Caveat Emptor It's the same as opening your own Shop or a Mall or buying sims and turning it into a rental business......there's no guarantees of profits for any of those. In some cases investing in breedables is less of a monetary risk than the examples i gave. That's akin to saying renting a store in a mall in real life is just like buying those proofs of coins that they try to sell you over the television. You know? The ones where they give you the value of true gold coin and then offer you the proof of the coin. Caveat Emptor - Let the Buyer Beware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene Erlanger Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Adrian Harbinger wrote: Ziggy21 Slade wrote: So please let us know when you start your legal action against breedable creators - I will be watching with interest That comment is equivalent to saying, "In case of nuclear attack, run in here, it's never been hit." First of all, Ziggy, I think that your rather condescending and snarky tone here does little to bolster your faulty arguments here. Secondly, you can play the semantics game all you like, but I'm pretty sure that if you stole a bunch of poker chips from a Vegas casino, a dollar value would be assigned to your larceny charges. Those plastic chips are representative of legal tender within the venue of the casino and can be readily converted to legal tender both inside and outside of the casino. This is an apt parallel to the function that Linden Dollars serve. They may be traded in and out of Second Life for real US dollars, Yes, Euros, what have you. You can buy them with dollars and sell them for dollars. They are as much legal tender as a bank check, a coupon, stock, etc. I have already stated my view in regard to legal vs ethical issue of the "Breedable" franchises within SL so I am not going to discuss that any further. I simply want to point out to you the obvious fact (supported by the real world precedent I provided in my earlier post which you seem to have dismissed) is that Linden Dollars are equal to their conversion rate to real world US dollars. Just because few people are willing to take a $4.75 grievance to court, it doesn't mean the facts change. Imagine if that grievance was in the millions of Lindens/thousands of US dollars. I am pretty sure that if you were the victim of some SL scam or fraud that involved such sums, you would have a very different view on the matter. A tiny speck of poison won't kill you, but that doesn't mean it's not poison. Depends which part of the world you are from...here in Europe, we don't threaten people with law suits for every discrepancy or misdemeanor....we're not a "Sue" happy culture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Harbinger Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Rene Erlanger wrote: Depends which part of the world you are from...here in Europe, we don't threaten people with law suits for every discrepancy or misdemeanor....we're not a "Sue" happy culture! Rene, I wish our civil judicial system had half common sense that yours possesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Adrian Harbinger wrote: Ziggy21 Slade wrote: So please let us know when you start your legal action against breedable creators - I will be watching with interest That comment is equivalent to saying, "In case of nuclear attack, run in here, it's never been hit." No, it really isn't. Adrian Harbinger wrote: Secondly, you can play the semantics game all you like, but I'm pretty sure that if you stole a bunch of poker chips from a Vegas casino, a dollar value would be assigned to your larceny charges. Those plastic chips are representative of legal tender within the venue of the casino and can be readily converted to legal tender both inside and outside of the casino. its not a semantics 'game' , the law is the law, something is either legal tender or it isn't. You can draw any analogy you like, Linden Dollars will never be Legal Tender and neither. for that matter, will poker chips, it doesnt matter if you have to pay for them, it doesnt matter if you can sell them to someone else, it doesnt matter that they have value in one or several casinos, it doesnt matter that you can be arrested for stealing them, it doesnt matter that you can pay for your shrimp cocktail with them, they aren't legal tender. Legal Tender is the officially and legally recognised form of payment for a particular country or geographical area, in the USA, dollars and cents are legal tender, here in the UK, pounds and pence are legal tender, Pounds and pence are not legal tender in the USA, neither are poker chips, bank cheques, coupons or Linden Dollars Adrian Harbinger wrote: I simply want to point out to you the obvious fact (supported by the real world precedent I provided in my earlier post which you seem to have dismissed) is that Linden Dollars are equal to their conversion rate to real world US dollars. I wont be making a further comment on this because I really don't see its relevant, this part of the argument started because someone was suggesting taking legal action against breedable creators, and someone else suggested the fact the payments were made in Linden Dollars meant such action was impossible, (for the record, I think this is incorrect), someone else then disagreed with this stating the Linden Dollars are legal tender, I just wanted to point out that this is incorrect, and thats it. From a taking legal action standpoint, I agree with you, whether purchses were made in Linden Dollars, Dollars and Cents, Pounds and Pence or those little beans they use in the Maldives makes no difference whatsoever. Apart from that as far as I am concerned the point is irrelevant because i think legal action against breedable creators would be impossible for another much more compelling reason, that is the not so insignificant fact that no laws have been broken. So for the sake of reasoned debate, lets pretend that every single breedable purchase made, was in fact made using legal tender, whatever your personal defintion of that may be, so what!?, now progress the argument, on what basis are you going to start your hypothetical legal action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Gadget Portal wrote: Ziggy21 Slade wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: I didn't say they were illegal. I said purchases on the MP use real money and have to obey real laws. and the point of saying that was? Because some ninny came into the thread and started acting like that wasn't the case. I just felt it needed to be corrected, even though it's not so relevant to the original topic. The name calling is a bit feeble dude. If you actually read my posts you will see that at no point do I act in any such way, I merely pointed out that Linden Dollars are not legal tender, at no point did I expand this to argue that this meant that breedable creators were somehow above or beyond the law, that was someone elses argument, but if you would like to quote where I do, please go ahead, or apologise for calling me names and putting words in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Harbinger Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Ziggy21 Slade wrote: Adrian Harbinger wrote: Ziggy21 Slade wrote: So please let us know when you start your legal action against breedable creators - I will be watching with interest That comment is equivalent to saying, "In case of nuclear attack, run in here, it's never been hit." No, it really isn't. Adrian Harbinger wrote: Secondly, you can play the semantics game all you like, but I'm pretty sure that if you stole a bunch of poker chips from a Vegas casino, a dollar value would be assigned to your larceny charges. Those plastic chips are representative of legal tender within the venue of the casino and can be readily converted to legal tender both inside and outside of the casino. its not a semantics 'game' , the law is the law, something is either legal tender or it isn't. You can draw any analogy you like, Linden Dollars will never be Legal Tender and neither. for that matter, will poker chips, it doesnt matter if you have to pay for them, it doesnt matter if you can sell them to someone else, it doesnt matter that they have value in one or several casinos, it doesnt matter that you can be arrested for stealing them, it doesnt matter that you can pay for your shrimp cocktail with them, they aren't legal tender. Legal Tender is the officially and legally recognised form of payment for a particular country or geographical area, in the USA, dollars and cents are legal tender, here in the UK, pounds and pence are legal tender, Pounds and pence are not legal tender in the USA, neither are poker chips, bank cheques, coupons or Linden Dollars Adrian Harbinger wrote: I simply want to point out to you the obvious fact (supported by the real world precedent I provided in my earlier post which you seem to have dismissed) is that Linden Dollars are equal to their conversion rate to real world US dollars. I wont be making a further comment on this because I really don't see its relevant, this part of the argument started because someone was suggesting taking legal action against breedable creators, and someone else suggested the fact the payments were made in Linden Dollars meant such action was impossible, (for the record, I think this is incorrect), someone else then disagreed with this stating the Linden Dollars are legal tender, I just wanted to point out that this is incorrect, and thats it. From a taking legal action standpoint, I agree with you, whether purchses were made in Linden Dollars, Dollars and Cents, Pounds and Pence or those little beans they use in the Maldives makes no difference whatsoever. Apart from that as far as I am concerned the point is irrelevant because i think legal action against breedable creators would be impossible for another much more compelling reason, that is the not so insignificant fact that no laws have been broken. So for the sake of reasoned debate, lets pretend that every single breedable purchase made, was in fact made using legal tender, whatever your personal defintion of that may be, so what!?, now progress the argument, on what basis are you going to start your hypothetical legal action? Good question. I personally don't see taking advantage of suckers as an actionable legal issue any more than P.T. Barnum did. Legal and ethical are terms that only sleep with one another now and then these days. I will say that "IF" someone commits an actionable offense, I hope it is never you; because I think you will be sadly astonished at the failure that your "legal tender" argument will represent in your defense. As for my my "In case of nuclear attack..." simile? You and any reader here may dismiss it at will, but the casual dismissal of a possible risk is, after all, the subject of the simile, is it not? Not my problem. You go girl. 'Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy21 Slade Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Adrian Harbinger wrote: Good question. I personally don't see taking advantage of suckers as an actionable legal issue any more than P.T. Barnum did. Describing the perfectly legitmate act of creating an entertaining product that other residents love to buy and enjoy as 'taking advantage of suckers', in the Merchants Forum is frankly disgraceful. As I have pointed out many times now the vast and overwhelming majority of users have not been suckered into anything, this is just some perception that you have invented based on what is clearly extremely limited or more likely non existant contact with breedables and the breedable community. Your complete arrogance over this issue is quite astounding, as apparently you are the only one who has spotted this great con, while 10 thousand blissfully unaware breedable owners log on every week to enjoy their pets and be further taken advantage of. Perhaps you can explain why you consider yourself to be a greater judge in this issue that so many other people?. Adrian Harbinger wrote: "IF" someone commits an actionable offense, I hope it is never you; because I think you will be sadly astonished at the failure that your "legal tender" argument will represent in your defense. Here it seems you are accepting that no laws have been broken "YET", so your objection to Breedables is what exactly? You havent bought any, you don't know anyone who has any, and yet you apparently know all about what a terrible rip off they are, isn't it time to admit that you bit off way more than you could chew by entering this debate, and actually you have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain specifically what is "unethical" about breedables I am not going to bother repeating the contents of my last post, since you were incapable of reading it the first time, but just to remind others at no point have I presented a "Legal Tender" argument as a defence. My point throughout has been that there is nothing to defend. Someone incorrectly stated that Linden Dollars were Legal Tender, I pointed out that they are not and produced a nice quote to back this up, rather than admit to being wrong Adrian has decided to overlook this and try and twist the argument into something else. Adrian Harbinger wrote: Not my problem. You go girl. 'Nuff said. No it's not your problem, you don't and haven't owned any breedables, you don't know anyone who has any and since you don't actually have any listed products you don't compete with them in any way, I wonder if your own total failure to be part of the business community here is the reason for your weird bitterness towards those who are amongst the most successful in that community. I am not a girl - Dumbass . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Why are you so butthurt over people not liking breedables, Ziggy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Harbinger Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Ziggy21 Slade wrote: Adrian Harbinger wrote: Good question. I personally don't see taking advantage of suckers as an actionable legal issue any more than P.T. Barnum did. Describing the perfectly legitmate act of creating an entertaining product that other residents love to buy and enjoy as 'taking advantage of suckers', in the Merchants Forum is frankly disgraceful. As I have pointed out many times now the vast and overwhelming majority of users have not been suckered into anything, this is just some perception that you have invented based on what is clearly extremely limited or more likely non existant contact with breedables and the breedable community. Your complete arrogance over this issue is quite astounding, as apparently you are the only one who has spotted this great con, while 10 thousand blissfully unaware breedable owners log on every week to enjoy their pets and be further taken advantage of. Perhaps you can explain why you consider yourself to be a greater judge in this issue that so many other people?. Judging requires one to give a rat's ass, which I don't. I was merely correcting your misinformed blather. Adrian Harbinger wrote: "IF" someone commits an actionable offense, I hope it is never you; because I think you will be sadly astonished at the failure that your "legal tender" argument will represent in your defense. Here it seems you are accepting that no laws have been broken "YET", so your objection to Breedables is what exactly? You havent bought any, you don't know anyone who has any, and yet you apparently know all about what a terrible rip off they are, isn't it time to admit that you bit off way more than you could chew by entering this debate, and actually you have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain specifically what is "unethical" about breedables I am not going to bother repeating the contents of my last post, since you were incapable of reading it the first time, but just to remind others at no point have I presented a "Legal Tender" argument as a defence. My point throughout has been that there is nothing to defend. Someone incorrectly stated that Linden Dollars were Legal Tender, I pointed out that they are not and produced a nice quote to back this up, rather than admit to being wrong Adrian has decided to overlook this and try and twist the argument into something else. Here's to hoping you never have to find out. Adrian Harbinger wrote: Not my problem. You go girl. 'Nuff said. No it's not your problem, you don't and haven't owned any breedables, you don't know anyone who has any and since you don't actually have any listed products you don't compete with them in any way, I wonder if your own total failure to be part of the business community here is the reason for your weird bitterness towards those who are amongst the most successful in that community. I know people who sadly got sucked into that cabbage patch, despite my warnings, but alas, such is Second Life. I am not a girl - Dumbass My apologies, but you were acting like someone had yanked your ponytails. I was going to call you a wit, but I would have only been half right. Enjoy. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'm afraid you didn't prove anything. Legal tender is something you can take "out there" and spend. The worth of something because it was purchased as tokens and wins in court still doesn't make tokens currency. It has to do with them being purchased with real money, the same as you would purchase and have stake in any product that has monetary value in some way. L$ don't even have a redeemable value such as a store coupon where the fine print may read "can be redeemed for 1/1000 of a cent", where you could actually take 1,000 coupons and redeem them at a store for a penny. The precedent you point to was a settlement, which resulted in nothing at all. The wording of the TOS was weak and was remedied as to "ownership" for future cases, as it needed to be. The grey area is whether these tokens should at all act as "currency", which I personally don't believe they should. They get around financial and consumer law, which is something that will eventually implode when people "do" start getting cases into court when they get "ripped off". I think that's something that's bound to happen (sooner rather than later thanks to Facebook and Zynga), and I'm a huge believer in real money and escrow over fake currency. Real money is more open to legal action, but actually far safer and less risky and more trustworthy in the long run than funny money. And then there's this other thing where we have "no it's not a ponzi or pyramid by definition, but we're perfectly willing to throw other merchants with a different business model than ourselves under the bus". Which makes me identify more with LL than with my fellow merchants as a knee-jerk response, even though LL has a closer business model to mine than my fellow merchants (go figure) and makes mistakes to harm all of our business models. Suffering from identity crisis on this one. That's kind of what references to P.T. Barnum, ponzi, suckers and scammers does for me as a member of the merchant community. Would like to see some cases that come closer to hitting the mark though. But as a breedable developer I have no problem and would welcome this to be done with real funds rather than fake currency. A lawyer can advise me from that point on far more easily than now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilyra Chardin Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Dartagan Shepherd wrote: I'm afraid you didn't prove anything. Legal tender is something you can take "out there" and spend. The worth of something because it was purchased as tokens and wins in court still doesn't make tokens currency. It has to do with them being purchased with real money, the same as you would purchase and have stake in any product that has monetary value in some way. L$ don't even have a redeemable value such as a store coupon where the fine print may read "can be redeemed for 1/1000 of a cent", where you could actually take 1,000 coupons and redeem them at a store for a penny. The grey area is whether these tokens should at all act as "currency", which I personally don't believe they should. They get around financial and consumer law, which is something that will eventually implode when people "do" start getting cases into court when they get "ripped off". On the whole discussion on what is or what is not legal tender, I wrote: 02-27-2012 08:45 AM when you purchase an item on Marketplace using paypal with US dollars (which IS the definition of legal tender) it negates any notion that currency and transactions are "game money." Further, even if you use linden dollars for that purchase, the item price is given in an equivalent legal tender currency, US Dollars (same as casino tokens would be,). The question of whether there is a legal precedence that US law overrides TOS implies that a purchase online with US dollars is unique, which it is not. Purchasing "cartoon" items on marketplace falls under the same existing laws as any web-based purchases of any software, electronic media, etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not clear on your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Oh, agreed ... PayPal purchases make it far easier and clearer. I'm talking about the majority of purchases both on the marketplace and in-world which are in L$. In the case of L$ transactions, there are too many things not protected. And my point was more about legal protection for customers of breedables and merchants in general, which there is far too little of. If a breedable customer "is" actually getting ripped off, do they have recourse? What if I got my lawyer to say no because they weren't the original purchaser of the L$ that they bought my product with? It was fake money with no value that passed hands a million times before they purchased my breedable. Because my customer never actually purchased any L$, they have no protection. Could go on all day long about how because the majority of money in SL is "virtual", it can be used to protect myself. Real world purchases with real dollars aren't the issue here as with land or PayPal payments if we're talking protection and legal issues. I wish they were, as I'd be confident enough before I got to court that my model wasn't breaking any laws. It would protect both sides and cost both sides one hell of a lot less in legal fees to fall back on well known and understood consumer law rather than having to prove what has worth and what's virtual and what isn't, in court. You could still call me unethical at that point, but so be it, I don't believe that to be the case, although I understand where the assumption comes from. Most of that is just an answer to the innuendo that "your goose would be cooked" if this was real money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
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