On Saturday August 2nd, 2014, Agenda Faromet, an attorney specialising in privacy and Internet law operating out of San Francisco, and a member of the SL Bar Association, gave a dual presentation on the recent (July 2014) changes to Section 2.3 of Linden Lab’s Terms of Service and on the changes to the Lab’s policy on Skill Gaming in Second Life, which are due to come into effect from September 1st.
In all, the session ran to over an hour and a half, with Agenda initially covering the ToS Section 2.3 updates and dealing with questions relating to that, before moving on to the changes to the Skill gaming policy, and then addressing questions arising from that.
The following is a transcript of the core of the presentation, split into two parts for ease of reference. Audio recordings are provided, and there will hopefully be a video of proceedings in due course. With reference to the audio recordings provided here, please note:
- The audio has been edited to remove pauses. repetition or asides, in order to better match the text transcript and allow those who wish to listen as they read
- There has been no intentional altering of anything said during the presentation and Q&A session, nor has the context of the presentation or answers been altered in any way, other than questions asked in text being the placed within the transcript at the point where they are answered (when compared to chat logs of the event), again for better context
- Only those questions asked in text which were directly addressed by Agenda have been included in the transcript in order to maintain context with the audio recordings.
The two parts of the transcript, with their associated audio recordings, can be found as follows:
The following links may also be of assistance (will open in new tabs, and are repeated on the relevant pages above):
Terms of Service:
Skill Gaming:
- Linden Lab Official: Second Life Skill Gaming Policy
- Second Life Skill Gaming Approved Participants wiki page
- Skill Gaming FAQ
- Skill Gaming forum thread
Inara Pey: Living in a Modemworld 
Good discussion and presentation. Thanks for the transcript. I remain deeply disappointed by Linden Lab’s change to the TOS.
As we can see with Linden Lab’s dealings with Hasbro over Blocksworld content, they can negotiate deals that limit rights to a certain platform. Why Linden Lab can’t limit rights to Second Life, as they had done for the vast majority of the eleven years of Second Life, remains a mystery, although it might be a lot less mysterious if Linden Lab would actually engage with their users.
The old Second Life TOS was rather easy to understand in terms of the limitations, the new one remains a confusing mess.
LikeLike
You’re welcome. and ditto on sentiments re the ToS.
LikeLike
Monday Beam, here. Interesting discussion, thank you all for sharing. Rarely do I have to defend myself in the forums, but there is a first for everything and this apparently is no exception. I have listened to the presentation posted at “modemworld”, and have read the transcript. While it was helpful, it made no specific reference to “Monday Beam” in the context of the presentation (nor within the transcript). Instead, a question was asked which somewhat mischaracterized my procedure for creating an attorney-client relationship (although, again, I was not mentioned in the context of the transcript).
That said, I would like to attempt to clarify a few things so that users in Second Life™ can make an informed decision about the process for obtaining an RLO from me.
1. Disclosure. I have to date provided my RL credentials and contact information to ALL Creators and Operators for whom I have drafted RLOs, as well as to LL directly, after much back and forth with LL on what their policy or procedure would be. Ultimately, I submitted my current bar registration card directly to LL within the body of two (2) Support Tickets, showing “Active Status” and “Good Standing” to practice law, as well as my state identification, and real world contact information. Additionally, I have provided RLOs on my real world letterhead, at the direction of LL, which of course was also tendered to each Applicant requesting an RLO.
2. Limitation of Representation. I receive requests for “legal services” every day, from furries, and fairies, and werewolves, and virtual parents with prim babies, and pixelated “criminals” sitting in SL prisons, etc. In these role play situations, I clearly would not want to establish anything resembling an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, at the instruction of my bar association when I joined SL in 2007, I have specifically and unequivocally PRECLUDED any purported legal representation between myself and an anonymous avatar in a role play scenario, in favor of a traditional retainer agreement wherein both parties make full disclosure (as described above, and as specified in my posted Terms of Service).
3. Multistate-Federal Legal Representation. My Terms of Service state, “The Second Life™ account holder behind Monday Beam (“Attorney” herein), is a real life attorney practicing law in the United States and licensed to practice in the state of Illinois before the Circuit Courts of that state, the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, and federally within the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.” My primary area of practice is criminal litigation, with a secondary emphasis on Intellectual Property law, which makes me uniquely situated to determine whether any given skill-gaming activity could be construed as illegal under federal statutory law. The comment made by the speaker pertaining to lawyers representing clients who reside only in the state in which the lawyer is licensed, is misplaced. The federal gambling laws place representation soundly within the parameters of the “Authorized Practice of Law” for any attorney licensed to practice in a federal court of law, as it includes parameters which affect all 50 states in the United States. Secondly, my state (Illinois) has addressed the issue further, stating “if the lawyer, located in Illinois, is retained by a Wisconsin client simply to give legal advice on Illinois, Wisconsin or federal law, the lawyer would not be considered engaged in the unauthorized practice of law simply because the client is situated in Wisconsin.” See ISBA Op. No. 92-6 (Oct. 23, 1992)
Had the speaker at the modemworld forum been made aware of the specifics that I have disclosed above, my hope is that she might have used a term other than “shady” to answer the question. The speaker, “Agenda Faromet”, who is wholly anonymous to me, as well as to the group who attended, states that she too is a licensed attorney practicing privacy law in California. Not shady at all, in my humble opinion. Agenda, shoot me an IM.
If any of you have any additional questions, concerns, comments, etc., please kindly reach out to me inworld, or at mondaybeam.com, as I do not revisit these forums often. I wish you all well as we traverse these strange new virtual times.
Sincerely,
Monday Beam
LikeLike
Thank you for reaching out.
No specific mention of “Monday Beam” was made in the presentation as Agenda was resonding to a question on the subject to the best of her ability. While the name “Monday Beam” was mentioned in text chat during the Q&A, the person raising the issue was non-committal as to whom they were referring. As such, I felt it prudent not to include the name so as to avoid possible issues of mis-identification.
However, I’ve updated the transcipt to indicate you have confirmed your identity and to link to this comment so that readers can be further informed.
Just as a point of calarification as well, the event was organised by the SL Bar Association, not by “Modemworld”, which is purely the name of my blog, and I’m actually simply as a means of reporting on the event.
LikeLike
I can confirm that Monday did finally disclose his credentials after LL requested that information (both in the original form and a follow up response). But at the time of this meeting he DID NOT disclose this information and would only do so with a retainer. On August 1st 2014 In a discussion in the Skill Game Help group WHICH HE DID GIVE PERMISSION TO SHARE with and I quote “Please share the following with anyone who has a question about my credentials, as I have run across this unceasingly since 2007” which is shown below. There is on privacy violation as he publicly gave permission to share the following statements.
[01:39] Monday Beam: Please share the following with anyone who has a question about my credentials, as I have run across this unceasingly since 2007:
[01:39] Monday Beam: Credentials. I must balance two interests here. I am happy to make full disclosure of my real world contact information and credentials for any RLOs drafted, upon request.
However, in such instances I will require (a) a signed and notarized retainer agreement, (b) a signed NDA covering the RL information of both myself, as attorney, as well as that of the client, and (c) a retainer equal to two billable hours ($800USD) per unique RLO Skilled Game title. The compromise here, and apparently the most feasible solution for most Creators and Operators thus far, is to authenticate my status in a support ticket. To date, and at the request of LL, I have provided within the body of two Support Tickets containing my RL identification and current licensing status showing “Active” status “in good standing” issued by the Supreme Court of Illinois. These Support Tickets are referred to within the context of my RLOs, a copy of which will be tendered to the Creator/Operator for inclusion in their respective application(s).
Agendas comments and the context of that individual (who was not me by the way) were true and accurate at that moment in time. Monday was NOT disclosing his name, or credentials without a retainer first.
Further follow up RLOs from LL were requesting credentials. Apparently these alleged support tickets and providing only avatar name were not sufficient for LL in regards to the RLOs
LikeLike