Question about reselling purchased objects

Most likely answered several times.
I have allot of things I have bought in my inventory that I do not use.
It it wrong for me to take the no copy objects (cars, funature, etc) that I have bought over the years and have a garage sale?
I am not talking about copy or free stuff. But for instance, a corvette I bought at 500l. Its no mod, no copy. Would it be wrong for me to sell it for 300l?

Just curious because I have tons of crap that I dont use that I know others could. And I could use the $$ right now.

If it's a one time thing, i think, its fine. If you are setting up a business where you offer for sale things you have not made without permission of the creator, then, i think, it can be a problem.

I don't see anything wrong with selling an original. (The only time I don't agree with it is if you purchase 20 cars for 300 and resell them for 500, for example.) If you don't use it, have a yard sale!

As long as your selling originals, not copies, and you are offering bargin pricing on them, go for it.

If the object is not copyable, but is transferable, and you're just trying to clear out your inventory, then it should be fine. It's good of you to ask around first, though!

Well, if the creator set it to be transferable i think that is quite an explicit permission to resell it

That's not an assumption I would make. Again, if its a one time deal, its probably ok. But if you are setting up a business selling someone else's creations, regardless of the permissions set, talk to the creator.

No it is not wrong and it wouldn't be wrong if you sold a $500 car for $1000 if you could get it. I appreciate the comments here but this is a free market economy. The onus is on the buyer. If he/she sees that your car came from xMotors, he/she needs to find out if xMotors has it cheaper. Or if your neighbor has it cheaper.

Yeah I know, once again Bruno is being a cold-hearted capitalist pig but really people. If the original builder doesn't want me reselling it, that is an option for them to consider. Otherwise, if I an the new owner that means I OWN IT and I can do what I want with it. How come we're all cool with reselling property at higher rates but objects that were the blood sweat and virtual tears of some worker should be treated like the f'ing holy grail and never sold for higher value?

My own personal pet peeve is when someone relabels something that is generally handed out freely and resells it. If that is their business model, it's pathetic but they do own the objects.

I agree with what most people are saying on this thread. If the item is No-Copy it's fine, and I personally think it's a cool idea. Especially for limited edition items that could create a "collectors" market.

But if you plan on selling a copyable item please please please get the creator's OK. There have been occasional bugs in the privs system that have caused no-transfer items to be fully copyable and transferrable. So just because you run across an item created by someone else that has full privs, don't assume the creator wanted it that way. It takes 2 seconds to send an IM.

Thanks for asking!

This is an assumption that I would and will make. One of the benefits of using a hard-coded permissions system is that Second Life merchants don't have to have SecondLife lawyers persuing people who are violating their written license agreements; copying their objects and reselling them illicitly. They don't have to wage expensive SecondLive lawsuits in order to protect their "copyrights" or "licenses".

One of the downsides of a hardcoded permissions system is that it gives people exactly the permissions that you set. If you sell an item with "transfer" permissions set to on, that person can and may re-sell it. Conceivably, someone could run a successful business buying other people's creations and re-marketing them at higher prices, but this is unlikely to happen, for several reasons:

-their good name would be ruined by all the bad talk and feelings generated about them. Even though they'd done nothing against the rules, their actions would be considered wrong by the lion's share of the SL community; neg-rates, bad talk and shunning by the community would make it difficult for them to do business.

-Their ability to remarket another's items would only last as long as the creator continued to sell them with transfer permissions. The creator, if peeved by the actions of a re-saler customer, could withdraw their item from sale, or begin selling it with no-transfer permissions.

I would never, NEVER however take advantage of a bug or glitch to workaround the permissions that were set on an item. I assume that I am permitted to make full use of what pemissions that I do have on items that I buy, and no further.

My advice is not intended to reflect the letter of the law, or the capabilities of the permissions system, it's intended to help someone make a decision that will help them avoid drama.

Should people feel differently about this topic. Yeah, maybe. Perhaps the potential for free enterprise should outweigh the interests of the creator, and SL should embrace the practice of unlicensed resellers. Even if I agreed, it would not matter, because if you cross the wrong merchant, you will bring down hellfire on your head. So my advice is largely concerned with minimizing hellfire

So be a Do Bee, and ask if you plan to make someone else's work an ongoing part of your business model, not because you have to, but because an IM can save you a world of hassle.

I've thought of having yard sales as well... I'm glad you asked this question because now I wouldn't feel bad if I did do it

One of the difficult things with the resale model is that things do not AGE in SL.

For example, technology vendors have seen their growth and margins weakened by the resale/refurbish market. They try to manage the quality and scope by having a "Cisco-approved" (for example) group of refurbished equipment vendors that they license. Still, lots of product still moves on eBay.

However, in RL, not only does technology move ahead so the old stuff is less desireable, but things get OLD. Hard disks wear out. Coats get threadbare. Ties get stained. Vases break. So the amount of already-created product out there moving about stays within reason.

Within SL, however, this does not exist. Once a product is created, it remains in its pristine condition (unless you mod it all to hell).

So while part of me thinks that having a thrift shop is a neat idea, the above issue really bothers me because it could really cause problems if the resale channel starts outpacing the direct purchase volume.

Hence, after some thought, I agree with others here that asking for permission is the right thing to do. Not asking for permission doesn't make you a criminal or a scumbag, but it certainly isn't the nice or noble thing to do.

yet another permissions thing for LL to think about.

I agree that it was considerate of you to ask. I think the question has been well answered. One recommendation I'd make is to give your old items away rather than sell them because a) scripted items could fail in the future and even if you sell "AS IS" the buyer might want help or a refund and you can't help; and b) you'll likely find meeting people more rewarding than the L$ you'll get.

So, have a "free flea market" if you like. I have a bunch of space and prims if you need a place to host it.

As a content creator, and grow retailer. I see no problem with selling items you own, granted they were not meant to be free. I used to have someone who liked to resell my gestures and animations. I was like his whole sale store. Everytime he wanted to restock, he bought more. The fact he was making profit off my products really did not effect me at all.

Wouldnt it be easier if we had two different tick boxes for transfer and resell that way if it was transferble but not to be resold you could only set it for sale at 0$, dunno if im making any sense here

Yes, at which point I'd say to you, "Heather, I will GIVE you this exclusive Cubey Terra widget-o-matic if you PAY me $1500L"

Hey! My widget-o-matic is supposed to be free!!

To some, I may be playing the devil's advocate, to others, I might be saying something that just plain makes sense.

Now, here in Real Life (OMG! Scary thing!) we have distribution channels. People can Buy something, and take and resell it elsewehre at a profit. And that is perfectly legal. And that is a good thing.

Let's look at it this way:

Sam Builder makes Really Cool Thing Mark I, and sets it for sale for L300. It is No-Copy, No-Modify, and Transferrable/Resellable.

Sam Builder ends up putting up a store, and 5 people buy the RCTMI a day. Yay! Sam Builder now has L1500 a day income!

Sum Dude sees RCTMI and says "Hey, cool! Those are really nifty, but BLOODY hard to find! I bet a bunch of people would love them!" So, Sum Dude goes and buys 10 of them. YAY! Sam Builder now has L3000! And Sum Dude goes and sells those 10 for L400 apiece, but in a place that people can find them much easier... And manges to sell 10 a day this way.

Now, at this point, a LOT of people would end up screaming for Sum Dude's head on a platter, and negrating him, and causing all sorts of hysteria over it, because Sum Dude uis now selling Sam Builder's stuff and *gasp* making a profit! I mean Like "OMG! Sum Dude is making $1000 a day off Sam Builder's work!!! NEGRATE HIM!! OSTRACIZE HIM!!! KEEEEEEEL HEEEM!!!"...

Well, lessee... Hmmm... Think think Think... You just REALLY screwed up Sam Builder by stopping Sum Dude. If I was Sam builder, and I had any brains, I'd kick all of your {censored}es for stopping him in fact.

Cuz here's the deal:

Sam Builder was making $1500 a day...

Then Sum Dude came along and started doing his thing. And if Sum Dude is selling 10, and Sam is still selling 5, then suddenly Sam is making 4500 a day! Even if everybody stops going to Sam directly because they buy it from Dude instead, Sam is still making 3000 a day, twice as much as before. Then all the idiots screamed bloody murder and Sam is now making 1500 again. All that lynch mob succeeded in doing was costing Sam half or 2/3rd's of his income.

Soooooo... here's the thing... if you buy someting in Real Life, you coul almost invariably have bought it for a lot less. Does that mean you should NegRate the grocery stores because their produce is more expensive than the farmers' market?

"But Sam could do what Sum Dude is doing to get more sales, and then get more sales, and Sum Dude would be still wrong!!" ...

1: How does Sum's reselling cost Sam anything? It costs Sam NOTHING at all. In fact, everything that Sum sells is money in Sam's pocket.

2: Does Sam WANT to worry about doing as much work as Sum is to get the sales?

3: If he does, then there is STILL no reason to worry, because Sam can go and do the same work, and undersell Sum Dude, and then Sum will lose business, and will stop buying from Sam and reselling anyway.

But, honestly, if I were Sam, and Sum Dude went and started reselling my stuff, which resulted in greater profits for me, then I'd be tickled pink, because suddenly I get more money for Nothing. No work for me and more money in my Pocket, who cares if Sum makes some of it, it doesn't hurt me at all, and he -IS- doing the work to get this money for me.

So lay off, folks. Reselling in itself is not evil. Even continued reselling is not evil.

THAT Being said, I also do have to point out that THEFT and reselling is Bad™. Claiming that you made if and reselling it is Bad™ (And results in folks bugging you for the instructions, and anyway, everybody can see the creator. ).

But Buying Non-copyable items and reselling them at a profit as a business is simply what everybody already does IRL already. Sure, you -COULD- get it for less direct from the maker if you want to, but how many times do most people go to the Farmers' Market every week instead of the grocery store? Most people don't actually. That is why Farmers sell to Grocery Stores.

And honestly, delving even further into the Taboo here...

Reselling freebies that are copyable shouldn't be too frowned upon either, quite honestly. However, at the same time, I see that people will end up getting taken advantage of in those cases. So it's a tough call. I mean, I've gotten SOOOO many freebie packages that have duplicates of stuff in other packages, and seen stuff that I WISH I could find the freebie of since i know it's a freebie, but couldn't find... If Freebie sellers are held to "Truth in Advertising", then why shouldn't they be able to sell things that they went to the trouble to get, and make available to folks elsewhere? Why should everybody have to be altruistic? If somebody went to the trouble to find a {censored}load of Freebies, and collect and cull duplicates and everything, why should they have to give away all their hard work, or have nobody benefit from it? If they put it up saying "This is a bunch of free stuff collected, collated, organized, and set up for ease of use, and it costs L50 from me." Well.... Then... Why not?

I'd see a lot of people neg-rating this person, which is really silly. If he said "This is expensive stuff and you can get it here for $50!" then that is a reason to negrate. But pointing out that it is free, and being truthful in his advertising, the guy is providing a service, and is charging for that service, and NegRating is uncalled-for.

I mean, anybody who doesn't want to pay $50 for those freebies can always go and try to find them all themselves. And after two weeks and walking all over the SL Grid, when they finally find the last of them, they can be proud that they saved $50.

Make sense? I hope so. It's all perfectly logical, and intelligent people have no trouble seeing this.