« Prince hits fan(base) | Main | Surveillance Society: turning debate into action »

08 November 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c948553ef00e54f7d363f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Second Life legal developments: yes, it's another sex toys case:

Comments

csven

It would appear that you didn't bother to dig any deeper than the post to which you linked, and are therefore unaware that Eros LLC is but one of a *group* of SL businesses filing suit against the named individual... and it is, iirc, the *only* one dealing exclusively in virtual sex toys.

I suppose not getting all the facts explains why "the main legal issues in Second Life appear to be spats over "land" and IP infringement through stealing sex toys."

I would suggest subscribing to the Virtually Blind blog ( http://virtuallyblind.com/ ) if you want to follow legal news concerning virtual worlds. You'll likely get more information and get it in a more timely fashion. You can start with the relevant post, http://virtuallyblind.com/2007/10/27/content-creators-sue-rase-kenzo/ :

"The allegedly infringing items represent nearly every type of product for sale in Second Life including avatar clothing, skins and shapes, scripted objects, furniture, and more."

As better input usually facilitates better decision making, perhaps being more fully and correctly informed will influence IMPACT's decision as to whether or not it should grace virtual communities with its presence.

Alex

Ouch.

Many thanks for the input, and for making the point about the diversity of (virtual) products alleged to have been infringed in this case. That said, it does still appear that of the four reported legal actions arising from Second Life so far, two have been brought by Eros (the virtual sex toy maker) and two are disputes over land. Within the remit of my comment, the sex toy / land elements are I think statistically significant, and my point stands (for what it is worth).

We will be keeping tabs on this case as it progresses and more details become available, and hope we can continue to count on your thorough monitoring of our reportage to keep us focussed.

Thanks for the recommendation of Virtually Blind - I am already a subscriber, but the commendation will be welcome.

csven

Harsh? Sure. But, let's face it, most everyone complains about MSM's inability to refrain from trumpeting the salacious bits of a story, however insignificant those elements are and however skewed the remaining information becomes, just to get our precious attention. So it's a bit disappointing to see something similar - even if unintended - in this professional space which isn't subject to the same forces which drive their questionable behavior.

And c'mon, I'm no statistician, but I know that there is no statistical significance when the dataset is too small. Right now, by virtue of the new ground being broken, it's easily too small.

There *are* other disputes... and they *don't* involve virtual sex toys or land. They just haven't graduated to the level of RL action, and thus are not on most outside observers' radar. Thus, I'd suggest you bypass the filters and "see" what's happening firsthand. There's nothing like watching something up close and personal, especially something as interesting as what's going on in this arena.

When you decide to do that, I'll very much look forward to reading your entries here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About IMPACT

Contact IMPACT

  • Feel free to email the IMPACT team with any suggestions for new content, or if you'd like us to assist you with any legal issues.

Search


  • search the web
    search IMPACT

The legal bit

  • The news and articles on IMPACT are not legal advice and you shouldn't rely on them as if they were. Please don't act on any of the information on this blog without getting professional advice on the subject. Like most free general information blogs, we don't accept any liability in connection with your use of the information on the site.

    If you do need specific legal advice, the team behind IMPACT would be delighted to help.

    Creative Commons License

    We post the information on this blog under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 2.0 Licence (English law). You provide any comments and materials that you make on the same Creative Commons licence terms.

    Find out why we use a Creative Commons licence.

    We've registered our brands as trade marks. The following links will take you to the registrations for IMPACT, Freeth Cartwright and FC.

Accessibility

  • We take accessibility very seriously. We want everyone to be able to access the stuff we've put on the blog. If you've got any comments or suggestions for how to make the blog more accessible, please email the team.

    To learn more about accessibility and why it's important see our article Making websites open to all. There are more accessibility posts in the Accessibility section of IMPACT.