document.write('<style type="text/css">.magnolia-linkroll h2 {font-size: 1em} .magnolia-linkroll dl, p.magnolia-byline  {font-size: .85em} .magnolia-linkroll dt {font-weight:bold; margin-bottom: .25em} .magnolia-linkroll dd {margin-left: 0; margin-bottom: 1em; font-size: .85em}</style><div class="magnolia-linkroll"><dl>	<dt class="magnolia-mark">		<a href="http://www.massively.com/2008/04/10/linden-lab-lowers-prices-estate-owners-rebel/" title="Linden Lab lowers prices, estate owners rebel - Massively" class="magnolia-link">			Linden Lab lowers prices, estate owners rebel - Massively		</a>	</dt>	<dd class="magnolia-description">For a lot of the things SL residents get upset about, this one is much ado about nothing IMHO. The main reason for this supposed &quot;devaluing&quot; of property is that people have bought into the metaphor that they are indeed buying land, albeit virtual land. Ownership is a great metaphor, but in this case it&#39;s causing some harm.  When you &quot;buy&quot; land in Second Life you are really leasing server space, so any expectation of recouping the value of said lease on &quot;sell&quot; is wishful thinking. Granted the SL economy has worked like this often, but I don&#39;t see any way this is sustainable.  I think you can certainly sustain a model that buys an island and divides it up into smaller pieces to sell for a profit, but this notion that land has a value that remains stable or increases the same way RL land works is just not likely.  At least not with a single company maintaining the servers. I&#39;m not sure you would want to anyway, given the dynamics of a virtual economy.  For example, new hardware is always going to appear; therefore; the old server will naturally devalue. Linden Lab&#39;s move makes sense to me for these reasons.  It&#39;s just a shame residents can&#39;t see past the metaphor in this one case. </dd></dl></div>')