| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (43)

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 12:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What is it with the crack den? first they get popped for age play now for stealing someones trademark? LL needs to flush that crap down the virtual toilet.
Make them pay they stole the name now they can pay for it. Time to cough up some change crack heads.

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 7:12AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Kendra sez
"I do not blame Taser for wanting to collect damages for the improper use of their name. Think about it. Here this company sells these devices for womens safety. The Crackden makes a mockery of them by using Tasers to rape women. I am glad someone informed Taser International about the theft of their name and how it was being used. With ID verification being used,now there is no more hiding behind alts. If you are going to play... then it's time to pay."

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 10:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
isn't the age verification thing anonymous?
Reply

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 10:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There's no truly anonymous usage (in the undiscoverable sense) of SL. Armed with a court order or two, pretty much anyone can be traced down without extraordinary effort. Plus, since there's likely payment information, and IM logs and chat logs on the servers to draw on, it could be a good deal easier than you might think if there's a legal reason to chase someone down.
Reply

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 11:40AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why does Second Life have to pay for it? The Crack Den stole it. So the rest of us are going to be penalized with some new crack down on top of the current one because of what some perverts did?
When does it end?

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 12:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Technically, Linden Lab can be credibly argued to have made sales of the products, since their acquisition of Xstreet SL. Xstreet SL functionally operates as an agent of the seller rather than an intermediary between buyer and seller. That's assuming any of these products actually sold through Xstreet SL. If all the sales were inworld, that's another matter.

I would expect the discovery phase to determine sales inworld and via other means fairly precisely.
Reply

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 12:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
" If all the sales were inworld, that's another matter."
I hope so. LL should not have to pay anything but we know they have had to have a lawyer look into this and had to pay money already. I am positive this will be settled. Can you picture the Jury pool in Arizona being shown images of virtual rape? I do not think LL would like for this to be made public and have another black eye.
It is time for someone to put some islands up for sale and hire a good lawyer.

I hope this does not effect other things in SL like items inspired by RL objects like the make and model of automobiles or clothing styles that were inspired by RL designs.

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 2:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am surprised the themed areas that use trademarked properties are still running. Since most costume parts and scripted objects are pulled from other sources and are sold for the profit of the inworld creator the original creator/copyright holder is losing money.

For all those that cry foul that they spend the $L they earn on land in SL, consider this: If you pay the rent of your store with counterfit goods can you claim that that is legal?

It can't be considered virtual art or for personal use once you sell a copy for any amount of money no matter how tiny. If you don't own the Intellectual Property you shouldn't even be giving copies away. Once lawyers get the scent of money to be made through IP theft, they'll be like sharks scenting blood.

Posted: Apr 23rd 2009 2:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Some of those communities *do* have permission to use the marks and copyrights that they do.

I recall one incident where Linden Lab deleted a whole bunch of trademark/copyright content in response to a user-report. The user assumed that the material was used without permission (and in cases of trademarks the Lab has traditionally acted swiftly).

Unfortunately, the use was legitimate, and the operator of the SL site had permission in writing to use the material within SL. Incidents such as this may be why Linden Lab nowadays only responds to complaints from a rights-holder.
Reply

Posted: Jun 27th 2009 6:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
GROSS! I Googled The Crack Den in SL and found this picture. http://www.flickr.com/photos/34305715@N05/3193581161/
Do they use a TASER on naked babies? If I owned TASER I wouldn't want my Company name Associated with this. This is LL own fault for allowing this.

Posted: Apr 24th 2009 10:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I wouldn't know if they do, personally. The tasers in use are primarily for show. You can't harm or take action against an avatar without the other users' consent (ie: If you shoot them with an SL taser, they can opt to lie down and pretend to be stunned). Role-playing in SL is rather like LARP without the possibility of injury.
Reply

Posted: Apr 24th 2009 2:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The Crack Den is an urban-themed environment which spans over several sims. Not only is it a community platform for role-play, but also has designated areas with urban or grunge-themed shopping and residential / commercial land rental.

The business mentioned in the article, NG, had a presence in CD via renting land and vendor space, just as many others who wish to take advantage of the high volume of traffic the sims get. Otherwise, CD has no other affiliation.

In regards to the allegations made in comments above, they are false and without basis. The rules and guidelines which govern the CD community is far more restrictive and strictly regulated than even the ones SL Terms of Service or SL Community Standards provide. Residents caught breaking rules are immediately banned and abuse reported to LL.

Posted: Apr 25th 2009 10:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Trademark infringements aside, this picture of the nude child, is The Crack Den similar to that other game that made headlines, Rapelay?

Posted: Apr 25th 2009 10:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think the comparison could be made, since rape isn't possible in Second Life. Indeed, you can't really do much of anything to another user without their explicit consent - and usually even that's not sufficient: They may also need positive action, and the subject may require specialized tools in order to even give the appearance of having action taken against them.
Reply

Posted: Apr 26th 2009 2:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've long expected that LL's consistently unethical way of running business would come back to bite them in the butt. Looks like this butt-biter has some serious teeth.

This is an excellent article. I do disagree with one point the author made repeatedly: that Taser didn't do it's homework. I would suspect they've done their homework very well.

Yes, Linden Lab neither created nor (until Xstreet) directly sold items on their board. They have even tried to absolve themselves of any implication in these matters. However there is a legal area that has to do with knowingly (or unknowingly) allowing illegal activities to occur in ones domain that definitely impact this situation.

As a strong example... Linden Lab has KNOWINGLY allowed COPYBOT to exist and function on their board for years. As a result, thousands of items are being stolen and handed out as "freebies", directly impacting the copyrights of the content creators. While Linden Lab isn't responsible for the actual copying, they could very well be held legally responsible as accomplices for not plugging the Copybot hole.

The same holds true for other copyright and trademark infringements. Linden Lab KNOWS these things go on, on a daily basis. They see the Rebok and Nike and Harley and other knockoffs and they do nothing about it. Their supposed DMCA situation is a joke at best... pretty much like their claims to "stop gambling" on their board.

In short, Linden Lab is right smack in the middle of "Legal Quagmire Swamp". I doubt the court system is going to quickly swallow Linden Lab hype and propaganda as a defense.

Posted: Apr 26th 2009 2:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"TigroSpottystripes Katsu said on 8:49PM 4-21-2009
there is actually a company called "taser"? that is like trying to call your company "telephone" 0.0"

No... it's like trying to call your company KLEENEX.

The first company to develop something often becomes the by-word for the product. In this case, the household-term for the Taser... happens to be the company's trademarked name. They're well within their rights to protect their name and property... especially when it's being associated (as they rightly claim) with questionable (pornographic) settings.

Taser is their name. Would we want our own names associated with such things without our permission, and against our will? A name is important. Apparently, Taser belongs to them.


Posted: Apr 27th 2009 1:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know the contents of the minds of those involved, but believe it is likely this was an innocent thing, those calling their virtual toy devices "tasers", like many other people, were probably only aware of the general usage of the word and unaware it was a trademark and such.

I myself had never seen the company logo nor the word "taser" written as a brandname, and regardless of brand, I've heard tons of different electroshock and other types of stunner devices being called "taser", including those things that don't shoot darts and just have a couple of rounded prongs that are used to zap (aka: "tase") people.

The company is acting in bad faith, instead of politely warning the people involved that they own that word and dislike other people using it in some circunstances, they're trying to extort money from them with the help of the legal system. If they had first attempted to use the civilized route and the target of their complaints insisted on continuing to upset them after becoming aware of the facts I would probably see them in a more positive light.

Posted: Apr 27th 2009 1:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Does part of the complaint found on the Bloomberg news articule sound a lot like the new adult content definitions being put in place in Second Life?

“All of the defendants that sell virtual weaponry like plaintiff’s real ones, under the mark Taser for use in the Second Life programs and grids, also sell adult-only explicit images and scenes” and drugs, according to the complaint. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aR6xHcnBMn9M&refer=us

Maybe Taser International is suing Linden labs because the people who were selling these Tasers are peoples alts with fictious names on their account.

I really think this lawsuit has a lot to do with why Linden Labs is pushing for ID checks and moving the adult content to restricted areas.
I can see in the near future Linden Labs making everyone who does any type of business on the SLexchange to have a confirmed ID.

Posted: May 6th 2009 5:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reading all of this has me questioning the legal definitions.

Linden Labs is being sued because they received a commission from the person selling an object with a real life companies brand name on their website.
As asinine as this sounds, it makes some sense. Now what if one of the tenets in my mall who is renting from me, sells a sex toy shaped like a fruit with a brand name such as Del Mont.. ?
Would a mall owner also end up being on the list of defendants because they are receiving money for rent? I would hope that some legal points are sorted out in this mess so that the rest of us do not find ourselves in this same scenario.

Posted: Apr 28th 2009 10:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It depends. There's definitely precedent for a property owner to be culpable along with tenants.

Imagine for a moment that a tenant is selling some product unlawfully. If the landlord is just getting paid according to the lease as usual and it is not reasonable to expect them to have knowledge of the sales, then their culpability is limited or non-existent.

If it can be argued that it would be unreasonable for them *not* to have knowledge of the unlawful activity, or if they were actually receiving a *cut* of that activity, then they could be held to be fully culpable.

Here, we have the situation where Linden Lab can be argued to be retailing, and some of the goods that they are retailing on behalf of manufacturers are unlawful. That can go either way, and there's precedent for both innocence and culpability, depending on some hair-splitting and word-splitting to sort it into the scope of a past ruling.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW