Drayke Newall

I have sent a support ticket in before regarding the issue of subscription items being removed prior to subscription ending and the response was what all US companies state. US law doesn't say that nor does our ToC's and Australian law doesn't apply. Despite saying otherwise they stood by that. I left it at that and cancelled my sub on my old main account and have never subbed again. Yet here again we have another issue that is misleading and I can guarantee you the same response would be given. I have already tagged Patch for clarification and acknowledgement and he has posted in the forums multiple times since that. I have therefore reported it to Linden Lab and he has already seen it more than likely due to being tagged, bypassing support who in such a thing would be of no use as for one I cant phone them up and two am not going to try and explain it to their support bot. In all likelihood it was an error where they haven't made that part country specific. I like second life, I wouldn't have spent as much money as I have if I didn't nor want to see it improve. I have also said many good things about it, that doesn't mean however I have to say good things all the time or not be critical about their decisions, technology, web design, etc. I have nothing against Linden Lab (apart from Tillia's ToC's) nor with the US or its citizens nor with any other country. I do however have an issue with arrogance where the US, US Companies or its or other countries citizens believe that they are all that matters and despite showing clear evidence they continue to ignore that and then try and get back by using gotcha posts. All that needed to happen was people to leave it alone when I stated what the ACCC says and I tagged Patch into the post. Most people did and acknowledged that they dont know Aussie Law and took my word for it. I also dont mind when people misread my post thinking I was talking about American States. But other than that certain people that have no knowledge of the subject have to badger on about how I am wrong and they are right despite, not living in the country those laws apply nor running a business where those laws apply. They then have the audacity and arrogance to then once again post "I also don't get why people constantly have to be right". Not calling the kettle black at all... I am not right all the time however in these two cases I know that as a business owner in Australia doing these two specific things is not allowed. So yes, I will contact the ACCC to report it, not to be destructive or to tattle on them but so as the ACCC can, if they deem necessary, advise Linden Lab that they are in breach and how to rectify it correctly.

And the other two articles show they are in the wrong anyway so whatever, I have posted enough quotes from the ACCC that show it is misleading. I'll just wait until Monday and phone the ACCC up to report it along with not allowing subscription bought items to continue to be used until the subscription is up. Then they can contact Linden Lab directly as clearly Americans know better about all things not in their country than those countries citizens. Why is it always US companies and citizens that think they know best and no other countries law etc applies to them?

😒 Least it wasn't Soon™

I did read what you wrote and I am sorry but you are incorrect. If that was the case I could do the same thing with my business to absolve me of any prosecution that comes my way because I could just point to a misleading and ambiguous line and state "see the consumer should have known better because this one line absolves my business of all responsibility of any additional fees that may crop up after I have provided a quote". Maybe that works in America but in Australia you cannot claim ignorance or put clauses or catch all misleading phrases of something and get away from it. Pure and simply what they have on their premium page is misleading and in being misleading in implying that the total may not be final (even when GST is already applied) is against the law in Australia. You saying otherwise as a non business owner not in Australia does not make it true. As a prime example, Valve the owners of steam (and EA, Sony, etc.) were fined over $3million dollars from the ACCC because they said they didn't know that Australians have a right for a refund no matter how long a person plays the game. They even used that exact same excuse of "we didn't know Australian law applies to us" and "we didn't know about such laws". They even stated it after being told by customers that it is illegal with their response being basically USA Law trumps all. What happened.. they were fined. ETA: Seeing as you dont take my word for it ill quote the ACCC directly ACCC warns consumers to beware of subscription traps | ACCC it says to report any business's doing it: "All businesses must provide clear information to consumers about the cost of goods and services, including ongoing subscription services." Then there is this that clearly shows that all prices must include all taxes etc and be final which having a statement like "local taxes may apply" indicates that those stated prices may not be final. Price displays | ACCC Then if that doesn't give enough evidence, there is this article which puts it plain and clear for all to understand False or misleading claims | ACCC and I Quote: "It makes no difference whether the business intended to mislead you or not. If the overall impression left by a business's advertisement, promotion, quotation, statement or other representation creates a misleading impression in your mind—such as to the price, value or the quality of any goods and services—then the behaviour is likely to breach the law." Note that when it says in "your mind" it means me as an Australian citizen. I find it misleading as do many others who are not from Australia who have clearly posted in this thread that they find it misleading.

From the FAQ here Premium Plus FAQ : Linden Lab (freshdesk.com): I am currently in the middle of my Premium Membership, but I'd like to upgrade to Premium Plus now. Can you prorate the cost based on my current membership? Yes, we can! If you hold a Premium Membership and wish to upgrade to Premium Plus before your current Premium Membership completes we will prorate such that you only pay the difference between the value of the days you have left on your membership, and the cost for a Premium Plus membership for the same amount of time.

Doesn't matter. Law is law and Australian Law is clear. They are not allowed to add that phrase in if GST has already been included in the price as Business to Consumer quotes, which this is, has to include ALL taxes current and cannot include phrases like +GST or "not including GST" or "not including additional local taxes". The later in which applies in this case just worded differently. Linden Lab's CFO would know this to be the case and should make sure it is corrected to comply. It is misleading to do so as it implies to the consumer that the quoted amount may not be the actual payable amount until the invoice issued. That is illegal in Australia. It is the business's responsibility to ensure all taxes are included and saying that there may be additional local taxes doesn't cover Linden Lab, it puts them in the firing line of the ACCC. No government applies a tax to your bank transactions. Banks are a business that are not operated by the government therefore cannot impose taxes on banking transactions. What you are talking about is banking fees which are placed on by the bank alone and do not need to even be mentioned. It would be different and ok if it said exchange rates or bank transaction fees may apply as that is what they are, bank fees or exchange rates. Tax is federal and specifically stating the word tax means in Australia GST not a bank fee.

How old is the phone you are playing such games on? Any modern mobile game that has high end graphics, PUBG for instance (and yes there are plenty and no, just because SL downloads assets or uses assets that are unoptimised doesn't mean it is any different) heats up a phone or drains the battery quicker. Lumiya is not alone in this. A phone during average gameplay of modern high graphics games can heat up to as much as 45dgrees Celcius with no problem at all. As to battery, any high graphic game will drain the battery quicker and reduce its lifespan due to heat. That said, most people replace their phones every 2 years far before any such battery degradation would be seen. You dont see people complaining to PUBG developers or Black Desert Mobile developers that they shouldnt make the game as it heats up their phone.🙄 I know SL users are a special case where they play SL on the most antiquated hardware they can find, but outright writing that Lumiya or some other future SL mobile graphic viewer is not possible due to "its bad for your phone" is rubbish when modern phones and user usage says otherwise. Additionally who in their right mind buys replacement batteries from ebay and amazon? Go to actual phone repair companies or phone battery stores to get them that way they come with a warranty and certification. Then again I use a game optimiser on my mobile that allows me to change how much a game impacts the phone. ETA: Also this isn't just phones we are talking about which is what people get hung up over when a person mentions a 'mobile' client. It includes tablets like Samsung Galaxy Tab and Ipad that can run it far better than a phone would and to date do not have the ability to use the default SL viewer.

Might come down to that, but is shouldn't require an extra step to see if other taxes are being applied as stated.

I agree, which was my whole point. Whilst I understand it is a US company with a US only mindset, it is a global service therefore it must comply with all laws globally including Australian Law (Steam, Sony, Apple, Microsoft, EA, etc found this out the hard way and had to pay $100's of millions in fines to the ACCC due to believing only US law applies) . Unfortunately for LL, claiming developer ignorance of such a thing would not hold up in the Australian Court and therefore it is in Linden Lab's best interest to ensure that the page is corrected ASAP. As I said in my first post, I would have tagged a linden to highlight this error it but I dont know who would be in charge of such a thing. So that said will tag @Patch Linden (feel sorry for him as he gets tagged for everything) so he can comment as to whether it will be removed or not (it should). They already are in breach of another law in Australia by removing the Linden Home or land from an Australian user prior to the end of a premium term should the user cancel the subscription (all items paid for in the subscription must run the full course of the subscription irrespective of whether the subscription is cancelled or not), but that is off topic.

Then why quote me? The below image which is a screengrab from my (Australian) account page shows a figure of $32.99 which includes $3.00 GST (10%) yet clearly shows, which I highlighted, 'Local taxes may apply'. It doesn't say 'local taxes in the US' at all. I am from Australia, there is no local tax just federal 10% GST nationally which is already applied. The Trade Practices Act specifically states that what they have shown (highlighted) is illegal and misleading. Additionally and also highlighted is the $249.00/year subscription which also shows 'Local taxes may apply'. If as what you have said that yearly subscriptions do not have local taxes, then pray tell, why does it say 'Local taxes may apply'?

Where exactly is that shown on the advertising page posted above have shown? Did you read the ACCC article I posted outlining the laws in Australia governing advertising prices? I'm guessing based on your response you didn't. "Not including the GST component means that consumers only receive part of the price information. Failing to make the total price to be paid clear in advertisements is likely to mislead consumers and breach the Trade Practices Act 1974. Businesses must remember that where a price is quoted, it must be clear to the consumer exactly how much he or she will be expected to pay." No where does it say in the article, Trade Practices Act or any other legislation 'Invoices' of which you have shown as advertisements or quotes. It clearly states quotes and advertisements (defined separately from invoices) which is what the images posted before yours are. They are quotes or advertisements prior to showing an Invoice which has separate clauses in the legislation.

Dont be silly Arielle, didn't you know, its impossible to have a full second life viewer on a mobile phone. Even Linden Lab say it is impossible and will take millions of dollars to create just a text chat version only.🙃

I agree. The fact that the price seems to have taxes applied already means that when it is applied it should say VAT or GST included or nothing at all. In fact, it is tax law in Australia that if GST is already applied to the amount, then you are not to show afterwards a statement that may cause consumer confusion or mislead. Linden Lab applying GST to the figure and then afterwards stating that 'Local taxes may apply' is confusing and misleading. This applies to international businesses that are required to charge GST as Linden Lab is. Not doing so means that they can be fined by the ACCC. Quoted from the ACCC ACCC warns service sector | ACCC: "Businesses must remember that where a price is quoted, it must be clear to the consumer exactly how much he or she will be expected to pay...Prices displayed or quoted to the general public should include GST. Simply stating that 10 per cent GST will be added to the price at time of payment may mislead consumers." "Penalties for breaches of this part of the Act range up to $200,000 for businesses and $40,000 for individuals, per offence. In addition to monetary penalties, the Court can impose injunctions and order corrective advertising." Are you sure? Look carefully under the yearly figure stated, it clearly states "Local taxes may apply". This is not stated on the old premium plan but clearly on the new plan. This is why there is confusion. Linden Lab need to confirm which is which. If the monthly includes local taxes then the "local taxes may apply" needs to be removed. If it doesnt include local taxes then the yearly figure needs to have "local taxes may apply" removed and the figure for monthly altered to not include taxes. Cant have that statement on both as it is misleading, confusing and illegal. I dont know which Linden to tag on my post for this clear illegal statement (well in Aus anyway) to be corrected otherwise I would.

Patch has stated this wont happen as they are to afraid of a revolt from current Land Barons if they do.

You missed my point. Second Life doesnt have a CEO. Tillia does Second Life/Linden Lab does not.

For Oberwolf specifically no, there is no need to do such a thing as he is plain and simply the head of the board, Executive Chairman of Linden Lab. The CEO of Second Life (aka Linden Lab) that reports to said head and board should do... oh wiat...

One can never know and can only go by what the Lindens say. If they say that Belli runs at a loss and makes no profit then that is what we have to assume. Paying out stipends cost Linden Lab money as does servers to host those regions. If that cant be covered by premium and they say it is a loss then that is what it is. As Oberwolf said prior to that statement, the more they invest in SL the more engagement a user gives. Thus, they are happy to suffer the loss in the short term however hope in the long term i.e. 5 years down the track, that investment pays off and provides a profit. Once again from the horses mouth. Not me interpreting but what was said.

Please dont say it is the one handed mexican wave animation again. I dont think I could bare to watch another video with those animations. If it is, I will have to wait for the transcript.

It is probably true. If we take what we have been told from Lindens in that they cannot reduce tier as it would eat into their profit it allows an approximate understanding of whether it is true or not. If you take a 20% profit (usual non-greedy profit) on current full region price, that leaves $183 running cost per region. That means that LL need to make that much money just to cover expenses. I am not sure how many Linden Homes are on a region but lets say it is 10 on average. Premium now is 13.19/month and that includes $5.20USD/month stipend, a linden home, premium sandbox etc. If we remove the stipend cost etc, that means that for a linden home they charge $7.99/month if we assume the sandboxes, moles, live support staff, gifts, exclusive regions, etc. are free with premium and cost LL nothing. Keep also in mind that a year sub costs $8.25/month leaving only $3.05/month for a linden home. $7.99 x 10 equals $79.90 (or $30.50 if everyone buys the yearly sub) in earnings from a linden home region. Far shy of the $183 running cost. Now obviously the running cost could be less however even if it is less there is no way for LL to earn enough through Linden Homes to not loose money on let alone break even unless a region to run costs them under $79.90 (or $30.50) which, it could or could not depending on the Linden you believe. Take a land baron as an example. They have to divide up their regions 9 times and include skybox areas just to make a profit on their running cost (sim cost). LL is no different yet they only can charge for land space with premium. If they are making a profit on Linden Homes then the above calculation shows to users how much a region costs Linden Lab to host on AWS. For example if it does indeed cost them only $30.50 at its minimum with no additional profit, then that calls into question why they are charging users $229/region which equates to a 663% markup.

Whilst true, the problem with Second Life is that the cow is already being milked dry. There is only so much Linden Lab can offer of value in premium to residents and this is the problem with their premium offers. There is also only so much a person is willing to spend on a premium model. Other than group amount increases, more mainland/belli home and reduction in upload fees, what else can LL offer to entice people to spend money directly to them? There is nothing and what things they do have that would benefit money making for them and improve user experience, they want tied behind premium or are not interested in offering separately if at all. LL dont know how to run their offerings and this has always been an issue for them. They think that there is value in premium gifts, when most dont even get them. They think there is value in premium sandboxes when most times they are empty. They think there is value in premium locations such as amazon and dune buggy racing when 99% of the time no one is there. They think there is value in live support when most people expect that to be free. For example, Do you see any other companies offering name changes tied to premium at $53.19 each change (inc. premium)? No because those companies realise they would make more money and keep users more happy to offer the service cheaper and available to all. As mentioned, they have already stated they are looking at higher premium tiers. What's Premium ++ going to offer another $650 extra linden stipend, an additional 1024m², another doubling on user groups, live support for those outside of US time? That's all they can offer as they have already removed upload fees with Premium+. What the price going to be for that - $40? Even an 'a la carte' system isn't going to work as what can they offer? If they offer a base package and then pick and choose items at a certain cost it cost more than current premium. If they offered a linden home separately how much will it cost for them to make money on it - given they are loosing money on Belli? Keep in mind that a singular 'a la carte' option needs to be far cheaper than base premium of $13/month. So $5 for a linden home and $5 for the current 300L$ stipend and we are already at a point where the person should just buy base premium and LL would loose more money in such a system as not even $5 would cover the expense of those two items.

Is it? According to Oberwolf in his interview along with Phillip recently in SLB19, Belli and its community and community driven activities offers them absolutely NO profit at all and is a loss. That isn't me or any resident saying it, that is straight from the horses mouth. They make no profit on Belli. Whilst I joked in the other thread about Oberwolfs mexican wave, the actual interview was very insightful even going as far as confirming what Coffee said, that they never have and still dont know what Second Life is used for by residents. A few things to take away in relation to premium, cost and some misc. things that Oberwolf mentioned other than Belli not making money. They plan to release even higher premium subscription models. They plan to offer more expensive land with unknown extras due to AWS ability however no mention of reduction in land cost due to premium uptake and AWS as promised previously. They plan to offer more stuff in premium packages if the costs work out but no mention of basic improvements. They no longer market second life at all in a traditional sense. This was a big shock especially given them hiring a CMO recently.

All I got from that interview is that Oberwolf sucks with timing a one handed Mexican Wave.

Ah I see. Haven't had premium for a very long time so looked at the SL website to see if that was the case still. Silly me for thinking that they would have actually updated their website to support that. I should have known better. I quote: "...and may receive up to 1024m2 of mainland in place of the Linden Home option for Premium Members".

It really depends. Considering there a countless Belli homes already with many unoccupied it would mean that in order to satisfy the status quo they will need to make available at least half as many 2048 plots as 1048 Belli homes otherwise people will see that they are not available and not switch or buy P+. That would equate to the size of current Belli urban sprawl which already is huge. As to mesh uploads, it depends and, to be honest if LL do it, it will be to the detriment of user experience as well as LL retention. Textures, animations and audio uploads are easy to remove the fee for as they are a stock standard 10L$ and controlled by set sizes. Mesh uploads however are done in a way that the more complex the mesh is the higher the upload cost. This isn't the normal upload fee money sink but a method (in theory) in which LL can control/limit the amount of unoptimised mesh that is uploaded. The more unoptimised/complex the mesh the higher the impact which in turn means the higher the mesh upload cost. This means a creator not willing to pay the larger amount will tweak their mesh to reduce the upload cost. Considering that you can already abuse the LOD settings to reduce LI even if the model is complex, such a move as removing fees would further exacerbate the issue. Removing this upload fee is a double edged sword. On the one side the removal of mesh upload fees allows for a larger uptake of P+ due to the benefit/perk especially for creators, however, on the other side it severely impacts the limited controls LL have on reducing unoptimised mesh (which is already abused) and in turn may potentially cause more lag in SL.

The fact that they haven't introduced these 'soon' things as part of the current announcement in all likelihood means they will never be added. Just the same as grid wise experiences were soon, additional EEP settings were soon, BoM materials were soon, etc. If Linden Lab's track record is anything to go by, once something is announced and released, that is where it stays for the foreseeable future or if ever.