Opensource Obscure commented with another link to be added to the ones I posted yesterday, Dusan Writer’s reply to Botgirl, Entitlement, copybot and virtual worlds. Again, much good discussion in the comments there.
I’m not going to wade in to all of the things brought up in that post and the comments as I’m stressed out dealing with moderator issues elsewhere on the internet right now. I will just point out one contradiction I see arising in these arguments, concerning “virtual property” and Second Life.
Dusan Writer, and others, stress that the items we buy on Second Life are not real property. Yet at the same time, others are encouraging us to regard them as property, in much of the talk about content “theft”. No wonder there’s so much disagreement, and confusion.
I also think it is natural and indeed healthy for these topics to be controversial subjects. We’re out on the frontiers of an evolving world, and the current legal apparatus doesn’t necessarily address that world in the way we think it should, whether we’d rather it be more strict or more lenient towards certain positions. Debate and discussion is not only healthy, I’d say it’s vital. Accusations that people are trying to “destroy” Second Life by posting their views on blogs and in comments are both ludicrous and pathetic.
Sapphire Weatherwax 
I hope that my post wasn’t constructed as an attack on those who argue for the right to copy content in the way you describe. Yes, it was made to be intentionally provocative, but I encourage healthy debate!
The main point of my post, however, is that too often we discuss these issues as if licensed materials in Second Life are part of a broader domain of “owned content”, as if the jeans we own in a virtual world are the same as jeans we have in our closet. This ignores the fact, however, that the legal framework in which we “buy” jeans in Second Life are of an entirely different nature from jeans we buy at a store or even items we post or share on Facebook. We need to recognize that there is not ONE legal framework under which content, either real or virtual, is purchased. In the case of SL, content is licensed under the provisions of the TOS.
I encourage innovation and believe that we will see competing platforms or changes to Linden Lab itself which innovate around different legal frameworks for buying and selling digital goods. Discussions of our right to copy are healthy because they speak to our more general opinions of how we think platforms SHOULD be constructed. But just because we hold these opinions doesn’t entitle us to change the provisions set out by platform owners and which are the basis by which content developers and consumers agree to participate in those particular ‘jurisdictions’.
Oh, no, I didn’t read your post that way at all, and should probably have been more clear. I was thinking of posts and comments by a particular user, on Twitter and other forums.
I think you brought up many very interesting and valid points, though I don’t completely agree on all of them. Also many interesting things brought up in the comments. I’m just reading the most recent ones now; am particularly interested in the Autodesk case, as the finding that “while the sale was subject to numerous restrictions, it was nonetheless a sale, which means the customer had all the rights of an owner” seems relevant in spite of the TOS. Since Lindens covert to dollars I don’t see how it can be argued that a sale on SL isn’t a sale, even though it is for virtual goods.
I am pretty sure there have been cases where a TOS has been deemed invalid in certain areas – I seem to remember something regarding this and AOL, but I’ll have to go and look it up when I have a longer free moment. Essentially though, just as creators have rights protected by copyright, consumers also have rights protected by various laws, to which even TOS are subject. Exactly where the lines will be drawn is something none of us can be sure of until case law is made, and I imagine even legal experts would argue back and forth over the exact relevance of the Autodesk case to a situation on Second Life.
So all in all I agree with you about the healthiness of discussion, and I am very glad to have your views to read!