Kayla Whittaker Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I have notice people in a few groups trying to sell their avatars/personal accounts for RL money. I thought it is or was against the TOS to sell their accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 It is against the TOS without LL's written consent. Anyone buying or selling them runs the risk of having the account cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayla Whittaker Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 That is what I thought. But if you file an abuse report on it, there is nothing in that realms of reason to be given in that report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 are you the SL police? ...are you involved in this matter?...if no, hop around and have fun on sl, not worth the energy you put in it. You only hear people want to sell their account ór want to buy, you don't see a actual breach of TOS. Wanting to do things doesn't mean they really do it. Even when it is the purpose, you'r reporting something that didn't happen, or at least no proof of it. How will you ever see they sell a account? for 100% sure it won't be the account they use to advertise. If LL didn't take this rule in their TOS it would perhaps even be less interesting to do, now there is a market. The more after the familynames were deleted.. legacy names are still wanted, and the only way to get one is buy it.... illegal, but it happens. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesleytron Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Alwin Alcott wrote: .... illegal, but it happens. I wouldn't say it is illegal... it's just against LL's TOS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muletta Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Alwin Alcott wrote: are you the SL police? ...are you involved in this matter?...if no, hop around and have fun on sl, not worth the energy you put in it. You only hear people want to sell their account ór want to buy, you don't see a actual breach of TOS. Wanting to do things doesn't mean they really do it. Even when it is the purpose, you'r reporting something that didn't happen, or at least no proof of it. How will you ever see they sell a account? for 100% sure it won't be the account they use to advertise. If LL didn't take this rule in their TOS it would perhaps even be less interesting to do, now there is a market. The more after the familynames were deleted.. legacy names are still wanted, and the only way to get one is buy it.... illegal, but it happens. I agree with you Alwin, but at the same time I find it annoying to have a conversation with an avatar, who I thought I knew, and it turns out to suddenly be a stranger who has bought the ava. I tried that a few times. It is also a rather uneasy feeling to know, that one on my friends list, is doing things which is against the TOS. I think there is a reason, why LL has made a prohibition in this matter, and not only because of the need to identify the persons behind the avas. And I think it is okay they did .... But you are right of course, who wants to play "sl-police" in this case? - I don't .... But I don't like to be cheated either, from a stranger who suddenly has taken over a well-known ava/name on my friends list. So there is more into it, than that the person is breaking the TOS, I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Yes i agree there is more than just a break of TOS. I never encoutered it but would blink a few times when finding a friend who isn't the same person anymore... There's also the copyright... those are mostly seen as personal agreements, not transferable. So also not by selling a account. The reason i asked if the OP is police... well... seen the amount of people inworld, and the handfull who are so stupid to buy a old account isnt 'worth the time spended on it. I can hardly believe this is happening on a scale we should worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Boyle Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 "There's also the copyright... those are mostly seen as personal agreements, not transferable. So also not by selling a account." Wrong. Under U.S. law, the buyer of a copyrighted work has unlimited rights to resell it. Look up "Right of First Sale." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Jennifer Boyle wrote: Wrong. Under U.S. law, the buyer of a copyrighted work has unlimited rights to resell it. Look up "Right of First Sale." sorry to inform you we're not all in the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Faulds Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 In the sim where I admin, we have a few people that have, in the past, shared an avi. Since their command of English varied, it became very obfious that different people were playing it. The avi was higher level in the comat meter we used and they used it to intimidate other players. We banned that avi as welll as the ones that we knew were sharing it (from their own admissions). It was gaming the combat meter, whic is against our sim rules. That being said, selling an avi like that is a s much a trus issue as well as a TOS issue. Even if you defriend everyone and leave all the groups, the calling cards for all former friends are still in that folder and I've not found a way to delete the ones I'm not friends with; something I'm sure the buyers and sellers havn't thought about. There are those that want avis with legacy names. Elimination of the surnames was probably one of the biggest mistakes LL made and they have no plans on bringing them back. So we get names like E113n rather than Ellen ro Gwynndylynne rather than Gwendolyn or other more traditional spellings or we get names with numbers added to them because the player wants a particular first name. At least with surnames, if the name you wanted was taken with one surname, you could choose another, not to mention the clever name playes like Peppermint/Pepperment Twist that I've seen among others like Suffereningfrom Lockjaw (yes a real name. She runs the Hunt for Your Inner **bleep** hunt and owns Erotipose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Alwin Alcott wrote: Jennifer Boyle wrote: Wrong. Under U.S. law, the buyer of a copyrighted work has unlimited rights to resell it. Look up "Right of First Sale." sorry to inform you we're not all in the US Not to mention that even in the US the "Right of First Sale" doesn't apply to electronic goods that are endlessly copiable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Boyle Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Theresa Tennyson wrote: Not to mention that even in the US the "Right of First Sale" doesn't apply to electronic goods that are endlessly copiable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_LLC_v._ReDigi_Inc. From the article you linked: "On March 30, 2013, Judge Richard J. Sullivan ruled in favor of Capitol Records, explaining that the transfer of digital data from one storage medium to another constituted a violation of copyright, because the copy was ultimately an unauthorized reproduction, and therefore outside of the protection of the first-sale doctrine." (emphaasis added) and "The court explained that, '[h]ere, a ReDigi user owns the phonorecord that was created when she purchased and downloaded a song from iTunes to her hard disk. But to sell that song on ReDigi, she must produce a new phonorecord on the ReDigi server. Because it is therefore impossible for the user to sell her “particular” phonorecord on ReDigi, the first-sale statute cannot provide a defense.'" The court ruled that the First Sale Doctrine did not apply because the material was copied, not because it was electronic, or that it was copyable. We are discussing sellingthe same copy of digital merchandise that was bought, not making a copy and selling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Boyle Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Alwin Alcott wrote: sorry to inform you we're not all in the US Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for educating me. Seriously, the reason I limited my comment to U.S. law is that I don't know enough about copyright laws other jurisdictions to comment. If you, or others, care to describe the case law regarding copyright in other jurisdictions, I would be interested in learning more about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lei Hanfoi Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 good point ( im aussie,australian) 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