Tag: SL News

On July 31st the Google Affiliate Network GAN) closed-down. In terms of Second Life, the significance of this is that Linden Lab offered their own affiliate advertising through GAN. However, all is not lost for those who wish to advertise SL through their websites with the potential to generate modest income as a result of doing so, a fact Ciaran Laval pointed me towards.

The Lab has entered into a relationship with Commission Junction (who have themselves been running a programme to capture advertisers and publishers who had been using GAN) to provide a new affiliate service to those wishing to advertise Second Life on their websites.

Recently the Lab has been e-mailing those already using the affiliate programme with details on how they can make the switch. For those who have not previously used the affiliate programme and wish to do so for the first time can do so in one of two ways depending on whether or not you already have a publisher account with Commission Junction.

If you do not have a publisher account with Commission Junction, you can sign-up using the form linked-to from the Lab’s affiliate programme page. Do note, however that the form represents a contract between you and Commission Junction, not Linden Lab. As such, the Terms of Service displayed as a part of the sign-up process is for Commission Junction (and their associated entities) as well, and therefore should be read through. It would also likely be a good idea to check the Commission Junction website for further background information (details on how the system works for publishers, payout terms, etc.).

Once the sign-up form has been submitted, an e-mail will be sent with instructions on how to activate your new Commission Junction  account.

If you do already have a Commission Junction publisher account, you can apparently add Second Life to your account via the Commission Junction member’s area.

Either way, please take the time to read the Lab’s initial FAQ on the affiliate programme page as it includes some important information on the programme  – including the fact web sites based in the US states of Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and North Carolina are excluded, presumably for tax liability reasons.

As I’m on WordPress.com, this programme is not for me – but if you self-host, and want to add SL advertising to your site, it might be for you. Commission Junction has a large number of advertisers, so there is no reason why you cannot include other suitable ads as well in order to try to increase your opportunities for revenue generation. Apparently, the minimum payout amount is considered high, so as with everything of this nature, mileage is liable to vary as to the return gained through the programme when all factors (traffic, ad selection, etc.) are taken into account.

Related Links

• Linden Lab affiliate programme page
• Commission Junction website

In April 2010, and following Tateru Nino’s lead, I reported on a class action lawsuit brought against Linden Lab by plaintiffs Carl Evans, Donald Spencer, Valerie Spencer and Cindy Carter  on behalf of Second Life users, citing misrepresentation and fraud on property ownership, misrepresentation and fraud.

The action was brought by the plaintiffs after having their accounts terminated and their assets (land, content, Linden dollars) seized. What made the case particularly interesting at the time was that the plaintiffs had retained Jason Archinaco as their legal representative. Archinaco was himself no newcomer to the legal complexities of virtual worlds – he had represented Marc Bragg in a similar lawsuit brought against Linden Lab in 2007 which resulted in an eventual settlement between the two parties.

Nor did the similarities end there: the Evans et al case was initially set to be heard by Judge Eduardo Robreno, who presided over the Bragg case.

Given this, it is no surprise that the papers filed by Archinaco on behalf of his clients pursued a similar line of argument as had been put to Robreno in 2007, when  – and despite the confidential nature of the final settlement – Robreno appeared somewhat sympathetic towards the plaintiff at that time. Indeed, in a further twist, it was Robreno’s published holding on the matter of Bragg vs. Linden Lab which may have resulted in alterations to the SL Terms of Service which may in turn have contributed to the case involving Evans et al.

Even without this, Archinaco had a strong case to put before the court. Despite ToS changes, etc., Archinarco argued that the Lab continued to systematically represent that virtual items and land were owned by users and that the Linden Dollar constituted a valid currency. At the same time he outlined the Lab’s moves to withdraw such representations and present virtual goods and the Linden Dollar as ‘limited licenses’ and “tokens”, thus presenting Linden Lab as the owner of all as effectively altering users’ title “without consideration, the consumer’s knowledge or consent” through ToS, which Robreno himself had previously held as a Contract of Adhension.

The papers filed by Archinaco set out two potential class actions:

• The Main Class, comprising: US residents “who are or were owners, possessors, purchasers, creators or sellers of virtual land or any other items of virtual property or items as participants [of Second Life] at any point between November 14, 2003 and the date of class certification”
• A subclass of plaintiffs who found their Second Life assets “deliberately and intentionally converted, taken, ‘frozen’, or otherwise rendered unusable by Linden Lab” (SubClass A).

The case ran on through 2010, with the Lab moving for the case to be dismissed in July of that year, citing grounds which – and while I stress I’m certainly not a lawyer, I didn’t think at the time would carry much weight. After that, the case tended to fade from public thought – although it clearly continued with further papers being subsequently filed by both parties, including Amended Complaints on behalf of the plaintiffs, which included the names of further SL users who had seen their accounts suspended.

Move ahead to 2012, when Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, of the United States District Court, N.D. California, published holdings on the case, which granted Subclass A of the motion, which was defined by the court as:

All persons whose assets, including virtual items, virtual land, and/or currency in lindens and/or U.S. dollars, have been deliberately and intentionally converted by Defendant Linden’s suspension or closure of their Second Life accounts.

The Main Class of the action, which involved claims of violation of a number of Californian Laws, was denied.

It now appears that a settlement in the matter has been reached between Linden Lab and some 57,000 plaintiffs who met the criteria of subclass A before the matter came to court. This has apparently resulted in an agreement for a payout of some $172,000 by the Lab – which is to made in Linden Dollars (and so presumably to active SL accounts), amounting to approximately L$43,000,000.

Given settlement has been reached, and as Peter S. Vogel of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP notes, we will “need to watch for other lawsuits to see how virtual property ownership will ultimately established.”

Related Links

• Judge Donna M. Ryu’s findings – November 2012 (US District Court, Northern District, California)
• Evans et al: file and counter-file – this blog, August 2010
• Echoes of Bragg: Evans et al vs. Linden Lab – this blog, April 2010
• Evans et al vs Linden Lab: The new lawsuit on the block – Tateru Nino, Massively, April 2010
• Plantiff’s original filing – April 2010 (US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia)

With thanks to Aimee Weber, NWN