DISQUS

DR Dahlgren · 1 year ago

I own two domains that use secondlife in them. I have no problem putting a disclaimer on the site that clearly states I am not affiliated with linden labs. However, I will continue to use them as I see fit.

A good analogy is Harley Davidson. They are almost rabid in protecting their name, logos, etc. I can not use Harley Davidson in a domain name, that is their company name, but if I want to make a domain using sportster, one of their model names, I can. I can not name a motor cycle Sportster, but I could name a car that.

I can not use LindenLabs in a domain name, that would clearly confuse people, but secondlife is not theirs in the way that they seem to believe it is. I can not name another world secondlife2 and get away with it, but if I write a blog called my secondlife, LL doesn't stand a chance of making me remove it. It has to be clearly a situation where people could confuse whatever it is I have made for the product being protected. That simply would not be the case.

If I name a domain carsinsecondlife, there is no way the courts would take it away, just as if I created a site called allaboutsportsters, Harley would not be able to stop me.

If Limping Labs wants the two domains I own, they can pay me for them. I think 5 islands and free tier for year would about cover it.

DRD

Dusan Writer · 1 year ago

There are a significant number of people and companies upset, maybe even livid about the way that Linden has handled all of this. While none of those people seem to be denying Linden Lab the right to protect their trademark, it's the heavy-handed and blanket way in which they're doing it that's the problem.

Plus, the inSL logo sucks, as I posted here:

http://dusanwriter.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/my-...

But the issue isn't, as DRD discusses, the legal standing of the new guidelines, its that Linden has also revised the Terms of Service. So, while they might now have a legal basis in a court of law to have you change mySecondLife.com, they have reserved the right to terminate your account with the service.

Therefore, residents are not being asked to make decisions based on legal merit, they're being asked to make decisions about promotion and use of the SL brand, which under normal market and legal conditions would have some clear precedent and guidance, based on whether they worry about Linden shutting their accounts down.

How's it strike you to have your in world assets and identity in the hands of someone who on the one hand is trying to legally cover themselves but on the other is further reserving the right to cover themselves through their TOS if they wake up cranky one day and decide that courts of law aren't sufficient?