Erik Bethke, CEO of GoPets (a cartoony “global community composed of real people and virtual pets”) has an offer on the table that may be interesting to regular VB readers: a chance to earn part of a $5000 bounty while helping develop GoPets’ End-User License Agreement (EULA), Terms of Service (TOS) Code of Conduct, and Privacy Policy. Bethke says the bounty will be divided up by him in a way that “most fairly recognizes individual contributions.”

Cynics out there may view this as a way for GoPets to save tens of thousands of dollars on legal bills, but it seems like the effort has some real community-oriented purpose as well, and the fact that the documents will be released under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License inclines me to credit Bethke with a “do well by doing good” kind of plan.

The project is already being both supported and criticized for trying to be an “Avatar Bill of Rights,” but reading Bethke’s post, that doesn’t seem like the main purpose his offer. It is worth dropping by, whatever your perspective, as there’s an interesting ongoing discussion. And you could even pick up a few bucks (or Gold Shells, I suppose, if you’d rather) for pitching in.

Second Life creator Linden Lab recently clarified its July 25 ban on gambling. The clarification FAQ, linked here, includes the following important passages, some of which clear up questions raised in VB’s earlier post and subsequent comments about the ban on gambling.

What does “wagering” mean according to this policy? The term “wagering” applies to any covered game or activity (i.e. game of chance, sports betting) in which a user contributes Linden dollars (or real-world money or things of value), whether into a pot, at a table game, at a house game, for purchase of a card (such as Bingo), or in any way risks Linden dollars based on whether an event may or may not occur, such as whether a team will win a sporting event, or whether Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary.

Does this policy apply to “skill contests”? This policy only applies to wagering games that involve an element of chance. This includes, for instance, any game involving random number generation, simulated dice, cards, poker, lotteries, bingo, or any other “chance” game. Games of pure intellectual or physical skill, such as puzzles or other skill contests, may not fall under this definition.

What about games in which no Linden dollars or other “consideration” is paid out? If the “payout” involves objects that are more akin to novelty objects that cannot readily be converted into Lindens, real-world currency or value, then that activity will likely be permitted.

Following up on this, Reuters today reported that a number of “Gambling” related offenses currently appear on the Second Life police blotter. Because these things roll off the page and aren’t publicly archived, as far as I can tell, here is one example:

Date: Friday, August 10, 2007
Violation: Terms of Service: Gambling
Region: Cevedale
Description: Terms of Service violation : Gambling.
Action taken: Warning issued.

This is how each of the eleven Police Blotter entries on gambling read; there is a “Terms of Service” violation for “Gambling,” and a warning has been issued.

But there’s a problem, from a contract law perspective: the Terms of Service haven’t actually been changed, and neither have the Community Standards that users agree to follow when clicking to agree to the Terms of Service.

Read the rest of the post »

The Court in the Bragg case recently issued two Orders. One is available as a .pdf here, and the other is linked here (though the second link is broken as of posting). It appears by the title of the second Order (“Scheduling Order – Trial Pool December 17, 2007″) that a trial date has been assigned the week of December 17, 2007. Experience has taught me that these dates are rarely set in stone, and given where they are in the discovery process right now, this seems somewhat earlier than I would have expected, but it’s certainly possible that it will happen then.

The other Order consolidates Bragg’s motion for a preliminary injunction with the trial on the merits, and grants Linden Lab’s motion asking the Court hold $5,902.80 that Linden Lab says was in Bragg’s account when he was banned.

The parties also filed a second, joint FRCP 26(f) statement on July 20 (signed by both of them, this time). It appears to replace the one that Defendants filed on their own after negotiations broke down.

I only spotted two differences between the reports, noted below.

Read the rest of the post »

The Second Life Herald has an article up that beat me to some analysis I’ve been meaning to get to on the application of obscenity laws to virtual worlds. It’s been a topic of discussion recently because the recent gambling ban in Second Life raised questions about Linden Lab’s approach to the seedier side of the world. I analyze the issue a little differently than the SLH writer, ‘Jessica Holyoke,’ but we come to the same conclusion: virtual escorting appears to be 100% legal.

‘Holyoke,’ puts forth a few arguments as to why virtual sex work would probably be found to be legal, which is a reasonable approach, but one that I think takes the debate the wrong direction. It’s simpler than that. Like all criminal law questions, the act is legal if nobody has made it illegal. I’m sure there’s nothing on the books specific to this, so the question is: what current laws could prohibit virtual escort services?

Read the rest of the post »