Virtual World Transactions
Siann Beck
exchange with a person replying to that post, have largely settled the
question in my own mind, but would like to see what other thoughts there
may be.
The question pertains to transactions taking place in "virtual worlds",
in this case specifically that of Second Life. Some may feel this is a
trivial or insignificant matter, but virtual worlds are a phenomenon
which is going to grow in significance quite quickly over the next few
years. A very good comparison is the World Wide Web 15 years ago. Hardly
anyone knew of it then; now you rarely see an advertisement without a
dot-something in it. There are considerable parallels. The initial,
"pre-boom" surge of interest, where companies got excited and rushed in
and set up in a hurry, only to find that the old business models and
ways of thinking don't work, has come and pretty much gone. Now they're
stepping back and waiting for the experts to come along and help them do
it right. When that happens (and it is in the process of happening now),
there will be a "boom" for real, and ultimately virtual worlds will
become as ubiquitous as the Web is now.
Further, in the specific case of Second Life, there is a tangible
connection to the "real world", in that people buy and sell the virtual
currency for real-world money (currently at a rate of about 265:1
against the US dollar). There are a number of people making their living
entirely within Second Life.
In Second Life, residents can own virtual land, and buy and sell it. A
number of individuals have deployed "bots", which constantly scan for
land for sale below a certain price threshold, and purchase it
automatically. This has resulted in numerous instances where a person
set the price low in order to sell the land to a friend, or accidentally
set it low with a typo, and the land was purchased by a bot before the
transaction could be concluded or the error rectified. In some cases
these amount to losses of hundreds or even thousands of real-world
dollars.
Most people in such a case will return the land for the price they paid
for it, if asked. Others retain a "fee" for which they have various
names and rationales, and others simply refuse to return it for less
than market price, if at all. It is the latter two cases which I'm
interested in.
Virtual-world land tranactions work thusly: If I have a piece of land I
wish to sell, I open the dialog box, set the price, and click "OK", and,
in the case of an open sale, anyone can come along and purchase it. The
property is immediatly listed on an in-world exchange, which is
monitored by the aforementioned bots. In the sale dialog there is an
option to restrict the sale to a particular person, but people have
neglected to use it because they either didn't know it existed, or
didn't realize it was important, being unaware of land-snatching bots.
While such cases of ignorance are decreasing as this issue gets more
attention, unfortunately typos will likely always be with us.
Linden Lab, the Second Life service provider, disclaims responsibility
for transactions between residents, and will not intervene.
My question is, what legal principles and/or laws apply to such
transactions? Note that it is not the use of a bot to perform the
transaction that is under question, rather the act of exploting
another's ignorance or error. I mention bots simply because this is
usually how these situations arise, since in the case of a typo or a
sale intended for a specific party, generally the error would be
corrected or the private transaction concluded before the situation
could be exploited by human means. The bots simply make it faster. As
Mitch Ratcliffe wrote, "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster
than any invention in human history, with the possible exceptions of
handguns and tequila."
Now, as I mentioned, I have pretty well worked this out for myself, and
it seems to me that the good-faith aspect of contract law would apply.
Even though there is no contract, per se, written or oral, it seems to
me that there still is one implied, and a person exploiting an obvious
error is clearly acting in bad faith. If I type up a contract to sell my
house and accidentally put $150.00 insteand of $150,000, that contract
is not going to be enforceable. If someone hands a shopkeeper a $100
bill for a candy bar, thinking it's a $10, the shopkeeper is not morally
(nor, I presume, legally) entitled to keep the difference.
Is this an accurate conclusion? Any other thoughts?
--
Siann Beck
Gordon Burditt
>connection to the "real world", in that people buy and sell the virtual
>currency for real-world money (currently at a rate of about 265:1
>against the US dollar). There are a number of people making their living
>entirely within Second Life.
Yes, and the Tax Man is very interested, as he should be, when you can
make a real-world profit in real-world money this way.
>In Second Life, residents can own virtual land, and buy and sell it. A
>number of individuals have deployed "bots", which constantly scan for
>land for sale below a certain price threshold, and purchase it
>automatically. This has resulted in numerous instances where a person
>set the price low in order to sell the land to a friend, or accidentally
>set it low with a typo, and the land was purchased by a bot before the
>transaction could be concluded or the error rectified. In some cases
>these amount to losses of hundreds or even thousands of real-world
>dollars.
I believe there are precedents for this in the real-world stock
market. It's probably an issue in real-world commodities and
currency markets also. Brokers make typos. They may buy instead
of sell, or end up with a few too many zeroes on the quantity of
shares, or sell the wrong security. Things happen quickly and
opportunities are minimal for sanity checking. Trading bots are
likely to be in operation. Occasionally this makes the news when
it drastically affects the share price, as in accidentally selling
more shares than exist.
>Most people in such a case will return the land for the price they paid
>for it, if asked. Others retain a "fee" for which they have various
>names and rationales, and others simply refuse to return it for less
>than market price, if at all. It is the latter two cases which I'm
>interested in.
>
>Virtual-world land tranactions work thusly: If I have a piece of land I
>wish to sell, I open the dialog box, set the price, and click "OK", and,
>in the case of an open sale, anyone can come along and purchase it. The
Does this dialog have an "Are You Shirley?" box where you can see
what you entered and confirm or correct it?
>Linden Lab, the Second Life service provider, disclaims responsibility
>for transactions between residents, and will not intervene.
I'm sure the US Treasury would disclaim responsibility for markets
which it does not run (like the New York Stock Exchange), even if
those markets trade using US dollars.
>error is clearly acting in bad faith. If I type up a contract to sell my
>house and accidentally put $150.00 insteand of $150,000, that contract
>is not going to be enforceable. If someone hands a shopkeeper a $100
>bill for a candy bar, thinking it's a $10, the shopkeeper is not morally
>(nor, I presume, legally) entitled to keep the difference.
I think these are different situations. If you type up an incorrect
contract with an incorrect PRICE, that's different from a situation
where the price is not in dispute (and shopkeepers should be used
to transactions where customers require change).
Sometimes people may actually *WANT* to sell a $150K house for $150
(or occasinally even negative $150) (although usually to a particular
person, and often a relative. Either that or it's just become an
EPA superfund site, and he wants to be rid of it as fast as possible).
Seth
Siann Beck <myn...@yah-who.com> wrote:
>In Second Life, residents can own virtual land, and buy and sell it. A
>number of individuals have deployed "bots", which constantly scan for
>land for sale below a certain price threshold, and purchase it
>automatically. This has resulted in numerous instances where a person
>set the price low in order to sell the land to a friend, or accidentally
>set it low with a typo, and the land was purchased by a bot before the
>transaction could be concluded or the error rectified. In some cases
>these amount to losses of hundreds or even thousands of real-world
>dollars.
In the real world (well, stock market anyway) there are people who put
in bids for reasonably high-volume stocks (e.g. MSFT) at 10% below
market price. Sometimes, someone comes along and does a large sale
"at market" and their bids get lifted. They then sell the stock for
an immediate profit. That's perfectly legal.
>My question is, what legal principles and/or laws apply to such
>transactions? Note that it is not the use of a bot to perform the
>transaction that is under question, rather the act of exploting
>another's ignorance or error.
In the real world, that's generally legal (though there is the
doctrine of "unjust enrichment"). The fact that there are some
specific laws preventing such purchases in specific situations
(e.g. in MN, a book dealer isn't allowed to buy books for too low a
value even if the price is set by the seller) would seem to imply that
in the general case it's allowed.
>Now, as I mentioned, I have pretty well worked this out for myself, and
>it seems to me that the good-faith aspect of contract law would apply.
>Even though there is no contract, per se, written or oral, it seems to
>me that there still is one implied, and a person exploiting an obvious
>error is clearly acting in bad faith. If I type up a contract to sell my
>house and accidentally put $150.00 insteand of $150,000, that contract
>is not going to be enforceable.
There was no meeting of the minds.
If someone puts a price on a property in Second World intending to
sell it to his friend for that price, he really did intend to sell it
for that price, so there presumaby is such a contract.
> If someone hands a shopkeeper a $100
>bill for a candy bar, thinking it's a $10, the shopkeeper is not morally
>(nor, I presume, legally) entitled to keep the difference.
If a shopkeeper prices a camera at $200 instead of $2,000 and someone
buys it, he doesn't have to return it when the shopkeeper notices the
error at the end of the day.
Seth
Timothy
> In article <2h2324pccrt8rmlvvav3e4km156d3k7...@4ax.com>,
> Siann Beck <myn...@yah-who.com> wrote:
>
> >In Second Life, residents can own virtual land, and buy and sell it. A
> >number of individuals have deployed "bots", which constantly scan for
> >land for sale below a certain price threshold, and purchase it
> >automatically. This has resulted in numerous instances where a person
> >set the price low in order to sell the land to a friend, or accidentally
> >set it low with a typo, and the land was purchased by a bot before the
> >transaction could be concluded or the error rectified. In some cases
> >these amount to losses of hundreds or even thousands of real-world
> >dollars.
>
I actually play Second Life... the land sales system does give you
several chances to notice that the price was wrong. And I believe
there is an extra gotcha for a zero-linden land sale if you really do
click through the standard steps. And unfortunately even a 0L$ sale
to "Everyone" is not inconceivable... you might be trying to get rid
of a property you don't want to pay "Tier" (analagous to property tax
on condo maintenance fees) on anymore. There is even an option in the
game to abandon land (i.e., you can give it back to LInden Lab if you
are on the mainland or to your Private Estate operator.)
The 'bots are a controversial feature of the game... in the case of
land mainly because it prevents real avatars from snarfing up the
really cheap parcels of land. LL even discontinued a popular feature
called "First Land" (where they let each avatar buy one basic virtual
lot for the equivalent of about US$1.75 instead of the usual US$10-US
$30.) because of 'bots who snarfed up such lots before real people
even knew they existed. And for whatever reason, land sales cannot be
done by scripted objects (as opposed to a 'bot which is a computer-
drive avatar)... possibly to avoid abuse.
When selling land to friends, I typically sell it for the market
price... even when the buyer is my alt (i.e., another one of my own
personae.)
c
> My question is, what legal principles and/or laws apply to such
> transactions? Note that it is not the use of a bot to perform the
> transaction that is under question, rather the act of exploting
> another's ignorance or error.
>
you're essentially asking a choice-of-law question where no choice
actually applies ... it's a meta-analogy not unlike ones constructed
daily by lawyers, so i hope you find answers from legal minds that
help your search
> Now, as I mentioned, I have pretty well worked this out for myself, and
> it seems to me that the good-faith aspect of contract law would apply.
> Even though there is no contract, per se, written or oral, it seems to
> me that there still is one implied, and a person exploiting an obvious
> error is clearly acting in bad faith. If I type up a contract to sell my
> house and accidentally put $150.00 insteand of $150,000, that contract
> is not going to be enforceable.
you've decided contract law would apply to an online transaction ...
why?
contract law is a body of law grown mostly out of common law and
partly codified in the uniform commercial code, which was adopted by
49 states (i believe - and louisiana is the hold-out) ... while it's
reassuring to know our contracts are typically governed by old,
reliable law that arguably reflects our morals and principles as a
society, what happens when dealing with someone outside that society?
if the person who refuses to sell back $10M land he got for $10
because in his society, that's normal, should the rules you (and i)
think are normal really be what governs him? i remind you that were
there a universal sense of justice, there wouldn't much wrong with the
world at all, would there?
what if he has a point? his rule is "you get 1 chance to check for
errors, and if you miss it, too bad" -- that might be what's going on
in Second Life with those transactions (most computer transactions
offer a confirmation step for irreversible actions)
i understand that it seems most fair to you to extend the law you
presently live under to this new realm, but this new realm includes
the whole world and in the case of Second Life, where the publisher/
provider "disclaims responsibility for transactions between residents,
and will not intervene" it doesn't seem like you can force general US
contract law on your transactions
> If someone hands a shopkeeper a $100
> bill for a candy bar, thinking it's a $10, the shopkeeper is not morally
> (nor, I presume, legally) entitled to keep the difference.
>
within general US contract law, there are different standards for
different types of transactions
the UCC imposes a duty of good faith (or "fair dealing") on all but
private sellers ... and it sounds like these people are private
sellers, so maybe the good-faith argument isn't terribly strong for
you
on the other hand, unjust enrichment *would* likely be availing if
this case, at least as far as my figuring goes...
whether or not the "typo" defense would hold up is a totally different
story, as it varies jurisdiction by jurisdiction (in some you would
have to prove fraud, in some you would just take it to a judge who
would reverse the clearly erroneous transaction, etc etc) - it would
be much simpler if there were no confirmation stage
> Is this an accurate conclusion? Any other thoughts?
i think you applied the law fairly except that you based all of your
thinking on the assumption i laid out above
not only is this not legal advice, i don't even think before i post!
Siann Beck
week. Thanks to all who have replied.
c wrote:
> On May 7, 6:54 am, Siann Beck <myn...@yah-who.com> wrote:
>
>> My question is, what legal principles and/or laws apply to such
>> transactions? Note that it is not the use of a bot to perform the
>> transaction that is under question, rather the act of exploting
>> another's ignorance or error.
>
> you're essentially asking a choice-of-law question where no choice
> actually applies
Interesting; I was not familiar with that concept. See my comment after
your expansion below, however.
>> Now, as I mentioned, I have pretty well worked this out for myself,
>> and it seems to me that the good-faith aspect of contract law would
>> apply. Even though there is no contract, per se, written or oral, it
>> seems to me that there still is one implied, and a person exploiting
>> an obvious error is clearly acting in bad faith.
>
> you've decided contract law would apply to an online transaction ...
> why?
Just on the basis that an implied contract can be argued to exist in any
such transaction -- there is offer and acceptance. I understand that
that argument may or may not withstand in any given case.
> contract law is a body of law grown mostly out of common law and
> partly codified in the uniform commercial code, which was adopted by
> 49 states (i believe - and louisiana is the hold-out) ... while it's
> reassuring to know our contracts are typically governed by old,
> reliable law that arguably reflects our morals and principles as a
> society, what happens when dealing with someone outside that society?
>
> [snip]
>
> i understand that it seems most fair to you to extend the law you
> presently live under to this new realm, but this new realm includes
> the whole world and in the case of Second Life, where the publisher/
> provider "disclaims responsibility for transactions between residents,
> and will not intervene" it doesn't seem like you can force general US
> contract law on your transactions
I understand what you're saying here, and it's an issue I was aware of,
but set aside (without saying so, sorry) to simplify the discussion. But
I don't understand why you say that choice of law doesn't apply -- isn't
this exactly a choice-of-law issue? Since the great solidification of
the global community through the internet, the issue of what laws apply
to any given situation, when the parties involved are in different
locations, is something that has been heavily examined.
Unless you're suggesting that the virtual world is its own jurisdiction?
I think it's been pretty well established (perhaps even unanimously
agreed) that internet transactions and other internet issues are
governed by the applicable jurisdictions of the party or parties
involved.
> on the other hand, unjust enrichment *would* likely be availing if
> this case, at least as far as my figuring goes...
I was unfamiliar with this concept also (thanks to Seth, who also
brought it up). Yes, I think it would have a better chance of applying,
and perhaps in a broader range of jurisdictions. Interestingly, though,
I was just reading the Wikipedia article on "bad faith", which says:
The torts of detinue and conversion allow a person who has lost
possession of personal property to regain possession of that
property, even if it had been transferred to another after its loss
or conversion. However, the court will only order such a remedy if
the person with possession of the property obtained it in bad faith -
for example that they obtained it for free or for nominal
consideration.
So it sounds to me as if, in a jurisdiction where this standard applies,
bad faith would indeed be a strong argument.
> whether or not the "typo" defense would hold up is a totally different
> story, as it varies jurisdiction by jurisdiction (in some you would
> have to prove fraud, in some you would just take it to a judge who
> would reverse the clearly erroneous transaction, etc etc) - it would
> be much simpler if there were no confirmation stage
>
>> Is this an accurate conclusion? Any other thoughts?
>
> i think you applied the law fairly except that you based all of your
> thinking on the assumption i laid out above
Fair enough :)
Yes, there was an implied, "...under US law, or other jurisdictions with
similar standards," which I did not make clear. Of course in an actual
case, jurisdiction issues would have to be examined.
Part of the reason for my desire to discuss this in an open forum is
that there has been a general attitude of "Oh well, if the service
provider won't intervene, there's not a lot you can do about it." I want
to have something to point people to, to give them the idea that,
depending on the particulars of their case, they may have cause for
legal action; hopefully this will inspire someone to make the effort (it
would be interesting to see this issue in court), and perhaps this
possibility may make the bot-runners more amenable to private, amicable
resolution.
--
Siann Beck
henri
wrote:
>Sorry to take so long to get back to this discussion; it's been a hectic
>week. Thanks to all who have replied.
>c wrote:
>> On May 7, 6:54 am, Siann Beck <myn...@yah-who.com> wrote:
>>> My question is, what legal principles and/or laws apply to such
>>> transactions? Note that it is not the use of a bot to perform the
>>> transaction that is under question, rather the act of exploting
>>> another's ignorance or error.
>> you're essentially asking a choice-of-law question where no choice
>> actually applies
>Interesting; I was not familiar with that concept. See my comment after
>your expansion below, however.
I think the choice of law could be either party's physical location,
the location of the server, the location of where the business is
incorporated, or many other possible variables. Similarly, the forum
itself could be in many locations. There is a lot of room for
expensive jurisdictional wrangling, which could be enough of a
financial bar to preclude litigation, as the costs simply to establish
where the lawsuit should be filed and what laws would apply could
exceed the value of whatever is in dispute.
An interesting question is also whether the TOS agreement choice of
forum/law provisions would also apply to customers of the service
provider suing each other. I can see a good argument for that, and
little reason customers of the service should not be the beneficiaries
(if this choice is beneficial to them) of the same agreement they
signed with the service provider. (I.e. all parties could reasonably
expect litigation about the contracted-for service to occur in the
forum in question.)
Googling comes across the Second Life TOS at
http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php
It purports to do away with all choice of law arguments and specify
the "courts located in the City and County of San Francisco,
California, except as provided in Subsection 7.3 below regarding
optional arbitration." It doesn't explicitly give any benefits to
third parties. It's also questionable whether people by signing this
agreement submit to being sued by third parties in California. My
wild guess is that if you sued Linden Labs along with whoever else you
wanted to sue, you'd have a reasonable shot at it being a reasonable
venue, though, if you could get over the jurisdictional hurdles.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If a dispute arises between you and Linden Lab, our goal is to provide
you with a neutral and cost-effective means of resolving the dispute
quickly. Accordingly, you and Linden Lab agree to resolve any claim or
controversy at law or in equity that arises from or relates to this
Agreement or our Service (a "Claim") in accordance with one of the
subsections below.
7.1 Governing Law. This Agreement and the relationship between you and
Linden Lab shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State
of California without regard to conflict of law principles or the
United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.
7.2 Forum for Disputes. You and Linden Lab agree to submit to the
exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the City and
County of San Francisco, California, except as provided in Subsection
7.3 below regarding optional arbitration. Notwithstanding this, you
agree that Linden Lab shall still be allowed to apply for injunctive
or other equitable relief in any court of competent jurisdiction.
7.3 Optional Arbitration. For any Claim, excluding Claims for
injunctive or other equitable relief, where the total amount of the
award sought is less than ten thousand U.S. Dollars ($10,000.00 USD),
the party requesting relief may elect to resolve the Claim in a
cost-effective manner through binding non-appearance-based
arbitration. A party electing arbitration shall initiate it through an
established alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") provider mutually
agreed upon by the parties. The ADR provider and the parties must
comply with the following rules: (a) the arbitration shall be
conducted, at the option of the party seeking relief, by telephone,
online, or based solely on written submissions; (b) the arbitration
shall not involve any personal appearance by the parties or witnesses
unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties; and (c) any judgment
on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
7.4 Improperly Filed Claims. All Claims you bring against Linden Lab
must be resolved in accordance with this Dispute Resolution Section.
All Claims filed or brought contrary to this Dispute Resolution
Section shall be considered improperly filed. Should you file a Claim
contrary to this Dispute Resolution Section, Linden Lab may recover
attorneys' fees and costs up to one thousand U.S. Dollars ($1,000.00
USD), provided that Linden Lab has notified you in writing of the
improperly filed Claim, and you have failed to promptly withdraw the
Claim.
>>> Now, as I mentioned, I have pretty well worked this out for myself,
>>> and it seems to me that the good-faith aspect of contract law would
>>> apply. Even though there is no contract, per se, written or oral, it
>>> seems to me that there still is one implied, and a person exploiting
>>> an obvious error is clearly acting in bad faith.
>> you've decided contract law would apply to an online transaction ...
>> why?
>Just on the basis that an implied contract can be argued to exist in any
>such transaction -- there is offer and acceptance. I understand that
>that argument may or may not withstand in any given case.
There is absolutely no reason contract law applies any less in an
online environment than anywhere else. One can imagine an argument
that "virtual property" is not consideration sufficient to form a
contract, but I think such an argument is obviously bogus. The very
fact people are buying and selling such property is in and of itself
indication that they clearly consider it to be of value. Some people
even make a living doing it.
I don't see any reason normal laws wouldn't apply.
>> contract law is a body of law grown mostly out of common law and
>> partly codified in the uniform commercial code, which was adopted by
>> 49 states (i believe - and louisiana is the hold-out) ... while it's
>> reassuring to know our contracts are typically governed by old,
>> reliable law that arguably reflects our morals and principles as a
>> society, what happens when dealing with someone outside that society?
>> [snip]
>> i understand that it seems most fair to you to extend the law you
>> presently live under to this new realm, but this new realm includes
>> the whole world and in the case of Second Life, where the publisher/
>> provider "disclaims responsibility for transactions between residents,
>> and will not intervene" it doesn't seem like you can force general US
>> contract law on your transactions
>I understand what you're saying here, and it's an issue I was aware of,
>but set aside (without saying so, sorry) to simplify the discussion. But
>I don't understand why you say that choice of law doesn't apply -- isn't
>this exactly a choice-of-law issue? Since the great solidification of
>the global community through the internet, the issue of what laws apply
>to any given situation, when the parties involved are in different
>locations, is something that has been heavily examined.
Precisely because of the choice of law nightmares that emerge in these
environments, the service provider is very likely to put choice of law
and choice of forum clauses into Terms of Service. In this case, they
appear to have protected themselves, with no consideration for their
customers.
>Unless you're suggesting that the virtual world is its own jurisdiction?
>I think it's been pretty well established (perhaps even unanimously
>agreed) that internet transactions and other internet issues are
>governed by the applicable jurisdictions of the party or parties
>involved.
>> on the other hand, unjust enrichment *would* likely be availing if
>> this case, at least as far as my figuring goes...
>I was unfamiliar with this concept also (thanks to Seth, who also
>brought it up). Yes, I think it would have a better chance of applying,
>and perhaps in a broader range of jurisdictions. Interestingly, though,
>I was just reading the Wikipedia article on "bad faith", which says:
> The torts of detinue and conversion allow a person who has lost
> possession of personal property to regain possession of that
> property, even if it had been transferred to another after its loss
> or conversion. However, the court will only order such a remedy if
> the person with possession of the property obtained it in bad faith -
> for example that they obtained it for free or for nominal
> consideration.
>So it sounds to me as if, in a jurisdiction where this standard applies,
>bad faith would indeed be a strong argument.
I suspect clearly unreasonable purchase prices might qualify. Just as
a typo in a newspaper ad offering to sell your Bentley for $100.00
would not be binding, as a clear error, selling virtual property well
below its selling price is arguably a clear error as well (even if
others might do so on purpose).
(It should be noted there's a divide between the United States and
Europe on the ad issue. In the U.S. a for sale ad is not considered
an "offer." The "offer" is the potential buyer's response to the ad,
which can then be accepted by the seller. Only then is there a
binding contract. In many European countries, an advertisement is
considered a binding offer, and the seller is obligated to sell if
that offer is accepted. There is some fairly vociferous argument by
each side that the other side is completely wrong in every respect,
but somehow, neither choice has resulted in catastrophe.)
I'm not sure whether the transaction methodology used on Second Life
is sufficient to establish a contract to sell. If it transfers
property without procedural safeguards sufficient to ensure accuracy
and Linden Labs is aware of this, I doubt all their disclaimers will
protect them against liability. There is a question as to whether
people "own" their virtual property on Lindel Labs, but I think
someone could establish a property right in online virtual property
(assuming nobody has already although I believe this has been
established for domain names).
The system on eBay for instance operates as an auction and putting up
items for sale on eBay creates a binding contract to sell should there
be a qualifying winning bidder. Linden Labs may have been negligent
in how they designed their interface. Even if they were not negligent
at the time (the development of their online world since then was not
easily foreseeable), they may be negligent in their continued
operation of a system which is clearly not capable of handling the
needs of their customers. (I'm not analyzing or researching this
issue, just presenting a possibility.)
Another idea. Is there a bailment here for virtual property? Is
Linden Labs acting as a guarantor of the safety of these properties
which people are accumulating, or are they the online equivalent of a
storage locker where you leave the property there and walk off with
the key, and the owner or operator is not liable for anything that
happens with that property? Linden Labs, of course, would prefer
nothing of the sort. They'd prefer a system where they are not liable
even for gross negligence, no matter what harm a customer suffers.
Whatever they are, though, I doubt they're absolutely immune from all
real world consequences of what happens on their servers. There is
probably something that could trigger liability for Linden Labs here.
>> whether or not the "typo" defense would hold up is a totally different
>> story, as it varies jurisdiction by jurisdiction (in some you would
>> have to prove fraud, in some you would just take it to a judge who
>> would reverse the clearly erroneous transaction, etc etc) - it would
>> be much simpler if there were no confirmation stage
>>> Is this an accurate conclusion? Any other thoughts?
>> i think you applied the law fairly except that you based all of your
>> thinking on the assumption i laid out above
>Fair enough :)
>Yes, there was an implied, "...under US law, or other jurisdictions with
>similar standards," which I did not make clear. Of course in an actual
>case, jurisdiction issues would have to be examined.
>Part of the reason for my desire to discuss this in an open forum is
>that there has been a general attitude of "Oh well, if the service
>provider won't intervene, there's not a lot you can do about it." I want
You can always sue. Unless you're someone like Anshe Chung or one of
the other famous wheeler-dealers who make a reasonable living from it,
and/or can find a daring lawyer who for whatever reason just finds
this particular issue too fascinating to resist, and/or wants to make
a name, the amounts in question are usually too trivial to litigate,
the likelihood of succeeding in the case is usually too speculative,
and the amount likely to be won even if you win so small, that on
balance, there is little purpose in litigating.
>to have something to point people to, to give them the idea that,
>depending on the particulars of their case, they may have cause for
>legal action; hopefully this will inspire someone to make the effort (it
>would be interesting to see this issue in court), and perhaps this
>possibility may make the bot-runners more amenable to private, amicable
>resolution.
I can think of some non-legal routes to take for situations like this.
One is that you could form a group to protest this kind of situation,
get together virtual picket signs and so on, and picket the "virtual
businessplaces" of the bot runners, if they have any kind of virtual
presence other than just horking people's land. I'm sure there are
also other grayer tactics, shading over into harassment and defamation
(which I would not advise). There might be ways of "salting the land"
that would make various virtual properties worthless, such that it
would be obvious to any good faith purchase (i.e. there's a huge wall
around it leaving it unreachable), but would saddle bots with garbage
properties if they went around automatically buying (again this one
also raises legal issues of fraud). Not being familiar with the
milieu enough, I'm not sure what counter-strategies might discourage
the bot-running practice without running afoul of the law and customs
applicable, including the customs of the group in question.
Pressuring Linden Labs to make the buying and selling process more
like contract law their customers are familiar with might be another
option. I think applying the U.S. rule here makes perfect sense.
Treat a "for sale" ad as an invitation to make an offer, which then
allows the seller to reject an offer to buy from a bot that
encountered the ad.
There are also other ad hoc options, including having some kind of
arbitration committee with the ability to void transfers after hearing
complaints about whether or not the seller actually intended to make
the sale. At that point, you have a quasi-legal route to take online,
and then, even if the dispute eventually bubbles out into "real"
courts, there's probably a factual record of some sort for the court
to look at. For a defective example of this kind of system, look at
Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. You could learn a lot about how
not to do things from the ArbCom.