You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. greglas says:

    Don — not disagreeing with you, but just to show that there are two sides to every story, see:


  2. Deven Desai says:

    Don, I think the previous post’s point about another view reveals a problem with the letter too. The link says much of this but to be clear, isn’t there something odd about an imposed license? Would Get a First Life Have to reject the license to show that it did not agree that a license was needed in the first place? They shouldn’t have to do so and I doubt the license would hold up in court yet I wonder whether SL thinks it has sent a joke or a warning letter with some sort of alleged teeth? In other words would SL later claim that Get a Life acquiesced to the license a la confirming letter logic?

  3. Interesting. Here’s my take on in-game-censorship:

    Walk into a club too many times and start talking to other customers about the fact that the owner is a Nazi, a fascist, etc., and you’ll find yourself excluded from that store pretty quickly. What’s interesting about SL is that it is selling the illusion that it is not just a club, it’s a society. But it is (and this is the point of Get a First Life) really just an illusion that you can buy with various restrictions attached.

    If I did play Second Life I suspect I’d be annoyed if the club owner *didn’t* eject the cranky people. I’d want my illusion to be that of a happy and fun place, not a real society with folks pointing out that my fantasy is, well, just a fantasy and that the club is really just a club that takes my money.

    In saying that, I’m probably annoying plenty of folks who actually play Second Life and thus have a better sense of what actually happens there. I’d be curious to hear what they think.

  4. On Deven’s point (about the joke letter being a kind of Trojan horse licensing agreement) – I think it’s just LL lawyers having fun in several ways: cleverly playing on the form of a cease and desist letter; pretending to take the parody site seriously by rejecting the invitation to send a cease and desist letter; then parodying a licensing agreement. All in all, the letter could have some legal weight, but I would imagine that the weight is just about all on GAFL’s side. A judge would have be incapable of reading the document as a whole to see otherwise. But, I suppose, there are judges like that out there.

  5. Miriam Cherry says:

    Already enjoying the sense of humor you’ve brought in your first post. Welcome to the blogosphere!

  6. Geoffrey McGovern says:

    How much of this is a reaction to Bragg v. Linden Research?

  7. Hey Geoffrey, I’m guessing it has little or nothing to do with it. My sense, for what it’s worth, on that case is that Bragg admitted to employing what, in most MMORPGs is called a “cheat”, but which in SL amounts to ripping folks off. Bragg’s argument is, essential, that the code supplies the rules. LL argues that the rules go beyond the code and require more general adherence to fair conduct.

  8. Alan Childress says:

    Let me second Miriam Cherry’s opinion, and I look forward to reading more of you, as you begin the actual Second Life of blogging.