The Dangers of Virtual Goods
Over the last few days, I’ve read dozens of articles covering the newly updated Second Life Terms of Service (TOS) and the Class Action Lawsuit that has been filed against Linden Lab and Second Life creator Philip Rosedale. These reports have frustrated and perturbed me, but I expected there to be some melodramatic “news” surrounding these events. I can see how these events would be fodder for many of the sensational stories that are written about Second Life, most of which are about as accurate or thorough as you would expect to see in any common place tabloid. However, this afternoon when I saw that the Los Angeles Times and Mashable (who I hoped would have more integrity) had jumped on the bandwagon of sensationalism then I could no longer bit my tongue and keep my facts to myself.
Second Life’s newly revised Terms of Service
Second Life’s newly revised Terms of Service (TOS) officially took effect Friday. Though they were released a month ago, many reports are just beginning to surface about the updated TOS. While most users (in typical online fashion) probably just clicked ACCEPT before even bothering to read them, there were multiple changes, that whether you read them or not, you are now legal bound to. The changes mostly involved further clarification of Service and Content Licenses, including a new Snapshot and Machinima Policy.
The updates were consolidated by Linden Lab into the following reference chart:
Snapshot and Machinima Policy
The most significant of these changes (in my opinion) was the introduction of the completely new Snapshot and Machinima Policy. The Snapshot and Machinima policy grants Linden Lab and other Second Lifer users a license to use snapshots (without permission) and machinima (with permission) of Content that is publically displayed in-world. Creators who want to reserve their rights can do so by placing their creations in private areas or by altering the Covenant of the land to prohibit snapshots or filming of machinima. The EFF spoke out in support of Linden Lab, praising this new policy, by stating,
Instead of running from the new kinds of fair use enabled by new technologies, Linden Lab has embraced them… Linden Lab’s behavior should be an object lesson to movie studios and major record labels, who have alienated their own fans by trying to thwart new fair uses as they come along, whether through DRM or DMCA takedowns. Linden Lab has shown that there are innovative new ways to give the green-light to fair uses while still giving users the freedom to protect their creations. We hope that movie studios and major record labels are taking notes, because Linden Lab is showing them how it’s done.
Service and Content Licenses
Mark Kingdon, CEO of Linden Lab described the other licenses on the official Second Life blog:
…We’ve clarified the service and content licenses in the Terms of Service.
- Linden Dollar License: This is the license that allows you to transfer Linden dollars to other Residents. When you get Linden dollars, you get a license to use them, and when you transfer Linden dollars to other Residents, you are transferring your Linden Dollar License.
- Virtual Land License: The license you get when you acquire virtual land in Second Life works similarly to the Linden Dollar License. When you transfer virtual land to other Residents, what you are really transferring is the license you get to use that virtual land. This license reflects what virtual landlords are doing already in Second Life when they rent land parcels to other Residents.
- Service Content License: To enable us to provide the Second Life experience to you, we need to be allowed to “use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform” content in Second Life. However, the content you submit to Second Life is your content, not Linden Lab’s; you retain the intellectual property rights in your content. And, we’ve added a provision that ends the Service Content License for copies of your content that you delete from Second Life.
- User Content License: By submitting content to publicly accessible areas of Second Life, you allow us to display it and allow other Residents to see it. You also allow other Residents to “use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform” your content “solely as permitted by you through your interactions with” Second Life. Your interactions include your use of the Second Life permissions system. The User Content License reflects how our content creators are using the permissions system. The User Content License also clarifies that content creators remain the intellectual property owners of content they transfer within Second Life. Simply receiving content and becoming the “Second Life owner” of the content does not make you the intellectual property owner.
Evans et al vs Linden Lab
I have read the entire newly updated TOS and the previous version (that just was replaced) as well. I recommend that you take the time to do the same. While I am NOT a lawyer, I did not find these newly updated TOS to be (second) life changing. However, a new Class Action Lawsuit was recently filed against Linden Lab and Second Life creator Philip Rosedale that includes in its arguments the Second Life TOS. The Plaintiffs of this case: Carl Evans, Donald Spencer, Valerie Spencer, and Cindy Carter, are claiming misrepresentation and fraud, among other things. As I read the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Philip Rosedale tried to “bait the hook for potential customers” by intentionally misleading them to believe that by buying virtual land, they would own that land outright and therefore acquire ownership rights to it, only to turn around and seize their land/items/$L, without compensation, and without honoring any of their rights as owners. The complaint actually goes as far as to compare Rosedale to a “hawker sitting outside Second Life’s circus tent, singing marvels of what was contained inside to entice customers to enter.” The sarcasm that seeps from its pages puts this blog to shame. So much so, that well respected and informed virtual world blogger Ren Reynolds responded to the Complaint by asking, “you’re having a laugh, right?”
The reason many of us find this lawsuit to be a joke is because it’s widely know, understood, and accepted that while Linden Lab affords us many rights that most online game/MMO/virtual world companies do not, in the end, they own everything on their servers. It is also included clearly in the TOS, both now and in the prior version.
2003 TOS – 4.3 All Data Is Temporary. When using the Service, you may accumulate treasure, experience points, equipment, or other value or status indicators and contribute to the environment (“Accumulated Status”). THIS DATA, AND ANY OTHER DATA RESIDING ON LINDEN’S SERVERS, MAY BE RESET AT ANY TIME FOR ANY OR NO REASON. ALL CHARACTER HISTORY AND DATA MAY BE ERASED IN WHICH CASE EACH CHARACTER MAY BE RESET TO NOVICE STATUS. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY COPYRIGHT OR OTHER RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS YOU CREATE USING THE SERVICE, ALL OF YOUR CONTENT AND ACCUMULATED STATUS HAS NO INTRINSIC CASH VALUE AND THAT LINDEN DOES NOT ENDORSE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS (SUBJECT TO ANY UNDERLYING RIGHTS IN THE CONTENT), ANY VALUE, CASH OR OTHERWISE, ATTRIBUTED TO CONTENT OR ACCUMULATED STATUS.
2010 TOS – 4.3 [..]
You agree that Linden Lab has and may exercise the right in its sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or delete any Content or services from the Service or disable any user’s access to the Service without notice or liability to you or any other party, including upon our belief that such user’s conduct, Content, services, or use of the Service is potentially illegal, threatening, or otherwise harmful to any user or other person or in violation of our Terms of Service, Community Standards, or other policies.
In fact the previous version made it extra clear by stating,
2003 TOS – 3.3 Linden Lab retains ownership of the account and related data, regardless of intellectual property rights you may have in content you create or otherwise own. You agree that even though you may retain certain copyright or other intellectual property rights with respect to Content you create while using the Service, you do not own the account you use to access the Service, nor do you own any data Linden Lab stores on Linden Lab servers (including without limitation any data representing or embodying any or all of your Content). Your intellectual property rights do not confer any rights of access to the Service or any rights to data stored by or on behalf of Linden Lab.
The TOS both prior and currently make it quiet clear. I don’t think I “own” my virtual property any more than I thought I owned Park Place when I bought it playing Monopoly last weekend (even though their ads told me that I “can own it all” when I “buy, sell, and trade famous properties” and become “the next billionaire.”)
Virtual Entitlement
After people understand that legally we all agreed to (in a sense) give our ownership rights away, they want to know, why? To answer that you must first understand how content in a virtual world works.
While, like in Monopoly, we habitually use words like buy, sell, and own because they have become sort of a native language that we are accustomed to using, we never actually buy, sell, or own anything physical, nor is it ever equal to a real life purchase. Yet, some people feel entitled due to the immersive experience of virtual goods. You paid for that whatever, so you must be entitled, right? In reality, all you really paid for was a license. When you “buy” something in Second Life you pass on a license (i.e. your $L) and in return you receive a license that grants you access to block a of code/data that in-world we see as an object rezzed by the SIM that is running on LL’s Second Life servers. With Second Life hosting and storing everything, is there any wonder that it belongs to them?
Many online games/MMOs/virtual worlds all operate on a similar set of rules. Blizzard owns everything in World of Warcraft, or CCP Games owns everything in Eve Online. They all have clear TOS that you must accept to play. They all have the right to seize your account. They all have creative advertising. These aspects are an industry standard in these types of online/virtual environments.
Virtual worlds are not the only environment where you see this type of “ownership” either. It is very common and well known that University professors who create something or formulate an idea might be permitted some rights, but their work overall belongs to the University.
Enter Bragg
So now looking at the big picture, it kind of takes the bite out of the lawsuit, right? Or does it?
While most people would agree that for multiple reasons paying for a license doesn’t entitle you to many rights (as defined by the TOS), there is some previous precedent in this type of case against Linden Lab. Back in 2007, Marc Bragg sued Linden Lab claiming essentially the same thing. He purchased a series of land and was selling this land, when Linden Lab terminated his account and seized his virtual assets. Bragg admitted that he had, “learned of a way to purchase virtual land significantly below market values,” and was reselling it for a profit. Linden Lab argued that they proceeded inline with their TOS as Bragg admitted he was using an exploit to buy the land. The judge did not see it as open and shut.
In the first paragraph of his opinion the Honorable Eduardo Robreno states, “While the property and the world where it is found are “virtual,” the dispute is real.” He then continued, “Presently before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (doc. no. 2) and Motion
to Compel Arbitration (doc. no. 3). For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be denied.”
The reasons he set forth described Linden’s Terms of Service as a “contract of adhesion” and therefore unconscionable. Judge Robreno further explained this by stating,
“Linden presents the TOS on a take-it-or-leave-it basis…”
“In effect, the TOS provide Linden with a variety of one-sided remedies to resolve disputes, while forcing its customers to arbitrate any disputes with Linden.”
“…the arbitration clause is not designed to provide Second Life participants an effective means of resolving disputes with Linden. Rather, it is a one-sided means which tilts unfairly, in almost all cases, in Linden’s favor…”
Linden Lab then settled the case a few months later for an undisclosed amount.
What that means for this current case is still unknown. What we do know is that the case is being heard in the same court, before the same judge, by the same lawyer (Jason A. Archinaco) who handled Bragg’s case, and includes much of the exact same text/claims as the Bragg case. I would argue that the Lab is not in a position to simply settle this case. While many of the of terms that will be discussed might be typical contract law, this case is anything but typical. As Ciaran Laval points out, this case could open a massive can of worms. With Judge Robreno already having an understanding of the case, Archinaco having some experience and time to build the case, and the Plaintiffs having requested a jury trial, I can’t begin to predict where it is going, but it is certainly the case to keep an eye on.
Will we even recognize the virtual world after imposing so many suppressive real world influences onto it? Are we really ready for the consequences of our selfish complaining?
When you present the Monopoly analogy like that it puts alot in perspective. Having items in your inventory the way they are feeds into that culture too.
I sympathize with the Lindens. It clear that these individuals are just looking for money. They don’t care what happens.
Great post. Well said. I have been reading these articles too and I just want to scream. There is so much incorrect information out there. Comments claiming outrageous crazy talk. Who are these people?? Bragg was a scam artist and a theft who got lucky when Linden settled instead of wasting their time. I don’t know what this group did to get banned, but I’m sure it is in the same ballpark. You can’t use the excuse you didn’t read the rules. People just see $$$.
Considering the way $Lindens are intertwined with $US Dollars, even if they say they are just a license, and even if the current claims are shameless, it was bound to come up sometime.
I agree. Linden Lab has made this their policy before this recent update to the TOS, but they are forced to do so in order to protect themselves and us. They are forced because real life laws have not caught up with the metaverse yet. Lawsuits like this are forcing the hand of the law and the government, and that might not be a good thing. We might soon long for the days when these we the only regulations we had.
You’ve got it so wrong. I feel like you are just taking whatever you are given with a smile, as if you didn’t know what freedom is, so you can’t see what you are missing. We as creators and consumers have rights. We have been under a totalitarian regime for too long.
I agree that we have rights and literally we currently do have rights. As creators, Second Life and Linden Lab offer us intellectual property rights. I think most people have completely underrated the power this give us! It makes it so that creators such as Stroker can defend their content and their rights.
As consumers we have the right to use the content we have licensed in Second Life in whatever capacity we were given.
I don’t see how a company that does give us rights like IP, and fair use, can be considered a “totalitarian regime.”
Did you mistake this blog for something else? Maybe an article on the current status of freedom of speech in China or something?
Most of the views and comments here are black or white. It is or it isn’t. I think despite the fact that many of us have inhabit 3d virtual platforms for many years already, we are still digital pioneers and the tides are going to keep shifting for many years to come. Right now service providers like LL own all, after this case, maybe the tides will come in, but that doesn’t mean they won’t go back out again with other case, precedents, or appeals. We need to examine the complete picture still, which means looking outside of impulsive wants or dollar signs.
As you stated yourself Gianna, hardly anyone reads the TOS. Case and point.
So that means we should just disregard them completely? How does that make sense?
You made points using other games, but as we have been told a thousand times, Second Life is not a game! You can’t put it in the same category. The items we are discussing aren’t won or awarded for beating a certain level or so have you, they are items we bought and purchased with REAL MONEY.
I agree that Second Life is not a game, but I think you are still missing my point. While we are creators and consumers with some rights, we are *not* buyers, sellers, or owners.
Ok, Second Life is not a game, and we’re talking about what does, in the end, amount to real money changing hands in-world.
But you are missing something. Those game (WoW, EVE, etc) have a monthly fee. Real money changing hands. So, abstractly, and certainly not directly, the items in those games ARE actually bought by the users. The monthly fees are like an investment, if you will, of both the user’s time and money spent on their account, character, guild or whatever. And whenever the service provider deems it necessary, they will nuke a users account without hesitation. All of that user’s time and money spent is gone in an instant. Sorry, no refunds.
I fail to see the efficacy of your argument. There is definitely a relationship between the every day, run of the mill MMO and Second Life.
[...] studio, is holding a contest to select an animated short to air on the… 2 Tweets The Dangers of Virtual Goods | Sand Castle Studios Over the last few days, I’ve read dozens of articles covering the newly updated Second Life [...]
Giana, like you, I’m frustrated with the general tone of articles (and comments) on this issue and it’s nice to read a reasoned approach. That said, there is a lot in your logic and example that don’t really track.
For one thing, “all or nothing” TOS agreements are legally questionable, especially when they contain arbitration clauses, etc. I have mixed feelings on this issue, personally. On one side, I believe that companies hold the right to present their own terms of service. However, I also believe that those terms should hold up against the actions and policies the company exhibits and they should not be loopholes for companies to make false promises and act in bad faith. All hyperbole aside, Linden Labs has been, at best, erratic, and at worst, disingenuous in their positions on many of the issues their new TOS changes address.
Linden Labs has made a lot of promises over the years to their user base. They’ve presented virtual property as real property. They’ve pushed the idea that “ownership” in SL is sacrosanct. Individuals, organizations, educational facilities, and corporations have invested time and money on the premise that what they buy is SL is “owned” by them. And, in a sense, the permissions system backs that. If I buy a virtual rocking chair in SL, it goes into my inventory. The seller cannot yank it from my inventory. While SL could (and has, on occasion) delete it from my inventory, that is a questionable act. Many things, even in RL are sold with a license agreement of sorts. When you buy a book, you are not given permission to reprint it’s contents. The same with DVDs, etc. However, there is no question that you own the book and the DVD. In the virtual world, it is easy to delete data, and so people fail to realize that they should expect and demand the same level of ownership from virtual goods. If you destroy something of mine, IRL, you can be taken to court for replacement costs, etc. One day, I do not doubt, this will also be the case for data. Arbitrarily deleting someone’s inventory without compensation is, in kindest terms, an act of vandalism. When Amazon had to honor a legal agreement and remove certain copies of Orwell books from the Kindle’s of customers who has purchased them, their PR took a big hit — even though they refunded their customers. The expectations of property will catch up with the goods; we’re just not there yet. Your tone would seem to indicate that you believe consumers should not feel entitled to the goods they purchase. What then should they feel entitled to? How long should they be guaranteed use of their items if they don’t “own” them?
Your Monopoly analogy is also deeply flawed. You state that you don’t believe you own your virtual property any more than you think you own Park Place, etc. However, you do not exchange your monopoly money for real money. When I play WOW, I don’t own anything, but I’m not trading my real money for it, either. I pay a subscription fee that allows me access to the game itself and what I can gain/achieve in that format. Second Life charges money for their land. I “own” an island. I paid for it, and I pay to maintain it. The better analogy would be server space on with a hosting service. My blog, for example, is mine. I own it. It is made up of data and hosted on a server I don’t own. I have the ability to make back-ups. If my host no longer wishes to provide me service, the content I own is still mine.
What Linden Lab offers through Second Life is unique. It can’t be compared to a game, or RL sales, or anything exactly. It’s a new frontier with new pitfalls to navigate. It takes virtual ownership to the next level. Unfortunately, the company has been scattered on its message to users who have invested, in many cases, invested thousands of dollars and thousands of hours in businesses. There are obligations on both sides of that relationship. Something worth considering is that since it is the norm for virtual games like WOW to own and limit all content within their environment, why is there a feeling of consumer and creator entitlement that is different within the Second Life community? Isn’t it because Linden Lab pioneered and then heavily promoted this concept of virtual ownership and creative control over that which is constructed in their platform? If they encouraged others to invest in their platform under certain pretenses, why shouldn’t they suffer legal consequences for failing to hold up their end?
Finally, I read often the claim that since LLab “gave” its users the rights over content in the first place, they can do whatever they like with those rights. I find that point of view deeply troubling. First of all, the initial representation wasn’t that LLab was benevolently bestowing rights upon people. The theory was that virtual goods have value and content creators have rights. As scripters and coders who make their living off something with no tangible output, this was not a leap of logic. Yes, they were the first company to provide a platform and tools for an economy like this to be viable, but the concept is not something that can be put forth and withdrawn on a whim. Especially not when real people have invested a lot of real money.
There are a lot of dangers regarding virtual property, but nothing is more dangerous than the failure of many people to recognize their own rights. Granted, there are those who have unreasonable expectations — but that loud and silly minority should not negate the reasonable expectations of the average consumer and content creator.
Hi Salome! Thank you for your comment! You made some really excellent points that start the kinds of valuable and productive conversations that I welcome on this blog and that we need to be having on these topics/issues! So thanks again!
Having said that… there are some things I still disagree with you on, and/or that I might not have made clear.
I agree with you that the Terms of Service could be perceived as “all or nothing” and therefore legally questionable. I purposely (in the interest of being fair and open) brought up the Bragg case in which the arbitration clause of the TOS was ruled “unconscionable” for this very reason. However, this does not mean that we don’t have to follow the TOS nor does it automatically make Linden Lab thieves (as presented by the Plaintiffs). While some companies may use their “all or nothing” TOS to act in bad faith (as you suggest) I personally do not believe that this is Linden Lab’s intent. I believe that their TOS were written in such a way to protect Linden Lab. By providing us an open platform, with the tools and freedoms that they have given us, they also carry a lot of risk. I believe for this reason they absolutely need to have protective terms in place. I also believe that this is justified based on the types of lawsuits that have been brought against them up to now. I don’t believe any current or former plaintiffs are/were acting in the best interest of Second Life community, but in their own best interests. I also don’t agree that Linden Lab has been “erratic” or “disingenuous” in regards to the TOS. They essentially have said the same thing the entire time – Linden Lab owns everything, but they grant us certain rights and licenses. This has never changed. I can find you posts by many different residents/communities that understood this and that date from recent years, all the way back to 2003. This new version only further “clarifies” this.
You said that, “Individuals, organizations, educational facilities, and corporations have invested time and money on the premise that what they buy is SL is “owned” by them”. I would argue that is not at all why many invest time in SL. I’m not sure whether your thoughts imply confusion or that we are debating something different, but Linden Lab’s format for content in Second Life is proprietary. Second Life content doesn’t ever reside anywhere, but on Linden Labs servers. The virtual content being traded is not copyrighted goods, but licensed software products. So as I said in my post, while we are creators and consumers, we are *not* buyers or owners. Technically, the way things are, legally, no actual purchase took place so you never really “own” the content. So when it comes to deleting content, this case is very different than digital goods that you purchase. With the Kindle, users actually paid real money to purchase the book, and the TOS did not give Amazon permission to delete the book. In Second Life, only a transfer of licenses occurs, not a purchase, and the TOS as they are now, gives LL the right to delete content at any time. However, the only time I have ever seen content deleted by LL is if it was stolen (copybotted by someone then passed out or resold), or if it was obtained by using some sort of exploit. This makes perfect sense to me. If I purchase stolen goods in the real world, the police can seize them without compensation, regardless of whether I knew they were stolen or not.
You are also right that my Monopoly money was not a real currency, but my point was not just that I own nothing, but that the advertising tells me that I do. As far as WoW, I could argue this for hours as well, but since I’ve already said more than I intended, I will leave it at two things – you say you don’t own anything, but most items in WoW become your avatar’s “property.” You also say that you only pay a subscription fee, but most objects have monetary value and are often openly traded. You also can’t back up any regions or “property” there even though you paid for them with your subscription fee. You may be able to back up your website, but can you back up your Plurk, Twitter, Facebook, or even your email? You brought up the Kindle earlier and said you had rights to your digital books because you own them, but in fact you can’t back up your electronic books to any other device either. In addition, if you are implying you want to be able to back up the things you claim you “own” on Second Life (even though legally at least for now you don’t own them), then you are also implying that you want to supersede the creator’s intellectual property rights.
You also asked,” If they encouraged others to invest in their platform under certain pretenses, why shouldn’t they suffer legal consequences for failing to hold up their end?” The answer to me is simple. Since you are talking about legal consequences, we have to look at the legal issues. Legally, the TOS never promised “virtual ownership” as you called it. Show me a legal document that gave you “ownership” of anything. As far as I know, as of today, no court has ever completely overruled a TOS. In fact, I can find you plenty of case precedent that has upheld forced agreement to TOS, and “all or nothing” TOS, etc. Remember, the court never established that Bragg ever actually “owned” anything nor did it throw out the entire TOS. The judge simply ruled that the TOS at that time could not force Bragg into arbitration, because that particular clause was unconscionable.
Finally, you mentioned that Linden Lab gave their users “rights” and then took them back on a whim. The rights they gave their users and creators was the rights to their intellectual property, which is one of the most powerful rights you can have. It is what enables me to operate my company. They have never taken this right back, and I am very thankful to them to still have it today.
Just to reiterate, you currently do not have ownership rights because no legal purchase of content was ever made, just an exchange of licenses. The TOS legally gives LL ownership rights, as you have already agreed to in the TOS. This is not a new change of policy.
To me, the thing more dangerous than the failure of many people to recognize their own rights, is the presumption that they are ENTITLED to more rights than they are legally provided as determined by the agreement that they willing entered into (and therefore agreed to) while at the same time wanting to ignore others intellectual property rights, all simply because they feel entitled.
[...] amounts to just a bunch of 1’s and 0’s), I posted a comment on an article titled “The Dangers of Virtual Goods” by Gianna Borgnine. I liked the tone of the article for its civility concerning an issue [...]
Gianna, in the interests of not creating pushing your comments section into three more pages just for my own response, I went ahead and addressed your latest response in my own blog post (http://salomesays.com/blog/2010/05/re-the-dangers-of-virtual-goods/). Should you wish to address it here or there, I’ll be checking both places, otherwise, thank you for the back-and-forth. While I disagree with you strenuously on many points, I appreciate your ability to present your point of view without the customary drama surrounding the issue. Cheers!
I’d be happy to respond on your blog… you can see my comments there!
I guess it is not only a matter of “selfish complaining”. Great to read your post, much more clarifying than “linden labs tos lslap in the face”, now I am more clarified but still not in agreement with this terms. “7.3 You grant certain Content licenses to users of Second Life by submitting your Content to publicly accessible areas of the Service.” literally says that once you upload, publish, or submit any content to a publicly accessible space within the SL, you give up a lot of rights. In particular, not only do you give SL permission to do anything it wants to do with your content (e.g., reproduce it, share it with others, and repurpose your work), you also give other SL users permission to do the same thing. No published case has addressed this issues, as of yet, but once users really understand what they have done, it is sure to happen. Just think about it, one defense to copyright infringement is permission, so it would be hard for someone to say their content is being infringed if they in fact granted permission through the SL Terms of Use.. I do respect your point of view, but as your say, take-or-leaveit.
Thanks for your comments! My arguments are not really how I feel about the TOS, but more along the lines of that, really… these terms are not new, just newly clarified. We all agreed to them before,and I would guess about 98% of us agreed to them now. We agreed when we clicked the button and continued using the platform.
As far as 7.3 I would agree that not just this section, but the TOS as a whole basically say by using this service (SL) you agree to give up a lot of rights. However, I interpret section 7.3 a little differently. Section 7.3 states:
I would argue that “solely as permitted by you” can be interpreted to mean that content can be used only as you permit (i.e. give permissions copy/mod/trans) and only in SL.
I don’t think LL put this section in to take away our rights, but to be able to reduce their own burden in content theft cases, and to be able to provide rights such as the new Snapshot and Machinima policy.
sorry forgot to quote the term and phrase below 7.3 from http://www.francinewardblog.com/?p=407