FREE means FREE

Cocoanut Koala mentioned an idea in another thread, I'm sure it's been mentioned any times before, but I couldn't find any propositions like this in the voting system.

Content creators really should have the ability to lock an item that they make and give out is "not for profit", meaning it can be transfered and given for free but not resold.

This is a tough idea - First we need a "transfer but don't allow resale" option. Possibly "Do not allow resale over L$1".

Secondly, they can put it in a box, so anything set for sale would check it's contents. I'd propose that if anything in that box/item for sale has the "not for profit" flag, then it wouldn't allow you to resell the whole thing for more than L$1. People could legitimately box free accessory items seperately. If someone made a flowerpot, and someone else wanted to incorporate it in a larger build to resell, they would have to ask the creator for a copy without "not for profit" checked.

Lastly, you can have scripted "payment" into an object, this would be the tough part. I would hope that it would be as easy as checking if someone just payed >$1 into an object and then received an object with the "not for profit" flag, but don't know enough about the innerworkings of SL to know how feasible this is.

Discuss. Please. And once/if we can get this hammered into a voting proposition I'd really like to see it up there.

After reading the various threads regarding freebie theft, I've made all my upcoming freebies no-transfer. It's the only way to be sure, for now.

'Nuff said.

We at EC do like the idea of having such an option...

Many use the freebies we've created, and even some have sold them for profit (something we don't condone and put a stop to as we find such occurences). And although selling a freebie for 1L$ isn't really an issue (the item IS taking up prim space after all which could be used for something else so some sort of compensation is fine), the real issue with freebie selling is when someone sells such items for extravagant prices (C4 for 400L$ anyone? Or maybe a M102 Blaster for the same price), unmodified, or even outright leaked items 'stolen' due to a perm bug caused by an inventory update... And as has been said before, adding a color change script to an item or even worse, just retexturing it, does not constitute enough work to price a formerly free item at 100L$ or more.

Before we can add new permission features, however, we should fix what problems/bugs there are with the system we have... (This is my opinion by the way, not EC's). There are even certain ways which are known to completely bypass the perms system, or were at least the last time I heard (which was quite some time ago so perhaps that has been fixed). Such loopholes need to be found and closed, and some sort of permission management system perhaps added (a new option/window when you Edit something that you've made), a way of completely resetting all parts of an object's perms easily and quickly with just a few clicks, rather than having to go through the entire item and setting the perms bit by bit (this I'm sure has discouraged many from attempting complex projects as setting perms tends to easily slip from the minds who are new at making items), and yes I believe that a limit price to 1L$ option or even better a way to limit the price to a set number could be useful, however we must consider the ways it can be exploited wrongly so that such issues can be handled before its release.

And as to the why it should be kept at 1L$ minimum rather than 0L$ is simple, some merchant sites such as SLExchange require a minimum price of at least 1L$ to give the item as a gift, to prevent the malicious use of such a wonderful feature. However, this leads to my next point, which is how exacltly would one be able to stop someone from selling their item on a site such as the one mentioned or others and yet still control the price? Such a platform is outside the bounds of SL and as such any changes to SL wouldn't effect it (as far as the actual pricing of the item goes). The scripting involved in the delivery of such items doesn't take the price of the object into account at all. Well, 3 paragraphs is enough rambling for now. Just my two cents.

If you really want to do this, set a maximum price, so you can set a policy (eg, not to be sold over L$50, if that's what you want)

Or go buy a min size prim parcel near the places they're selling your stuff free, and put an an Impeach Freebie Seller sign there.

Excellent.

I like this idea.

we really, really, REALLY need this. REALLY. like, yesterday.

Yesh.

Nintheded

Tenthed

The permissions system should support the creator's original intent.

I disagree with that last comment.

I believe the permissions system should be designed to promote and encourage the creation of new material. Granting the creator the right to control the reproduction of their creations has proven to be the best way to do this, by far, but this shouldn't be elevated to the purpose of the system.

Hmmm...I'm not so sure. I mean, in RL I can get something for free and resell it, and no one would think twice about it. I'm not saying it's something I would do, but if we want to mimic a capitalist society, it should be allowed. Buyer beware, as always.

On the other hand, we do have the unique opportunity to build an economy from the ground up, and setting our own boundaries is what SL is all about. So in that respect, setting limits like this can actually be groundbreaking and of great historical significance.

So I guess the big question is, what kind of economy do we want to build?

Why not, Argent? I respect your opinion, but I don't fully understand it. Could you elaborate?

Ages ago LL had this grand permissions scheme in the works. Like all other good features the user base screamed they wanted, it was put on the back burner indefinitely.

Realistically everything having to do with vendors need to be redesigned in SL. Why? End User Restrictions and Rights. Right now the system is heavily weighted towards fair use. This is a good thing.

The content industry would like you to believe that there is rampant theft of content. In my experience rates of theft are usually proportional to the price/perceived value/difficulty of acquisition. It's a capitolistic nature to try and sell a product for more then you payed for it. It's a fact of life.

Copyright complicates things, Copyrights laws were first drafted over 300 years ago. Long before computers, they were created for the printing industry. Traditional copyright is pretty simple, you buy a book, you can sell it if you want; the book is yours the content within is not. You can add to the book or subtract from it, as long as you don't duplicate it (course there are restrictions). Jump forward to SL, you buy a car, you can either make as many copies as you want, or be able to transfer it with maybe the option to modify it. It doesn't compair. The trouble is copying.

(i'll come back in 5 or 6 hours and finish writing this)

the difference here of course driftwood is that there is zero cost to making indefinite copies.

I have no problem with someone getting a no-copy, transfer object and selling it in a yard sale -- the problem is copy/transfers

and yes, I whole-heartedly support the addition of EITHER
- transfer, no sale
or even better
- transfer, no sale priced above X


someone could still get around this by verbally negotiating payment outside of the object, but this is so inefficient the level of abuse would be minor.

what about yard sales...something like this could mess that up, i sometimes resell. NON Freebies....like say i buy a No Mod No Copy Skin want to sell it at 300l$ worth 900l$.... with this i could not sell it...because most would just make it no resale... but can give away...

After reading the Jamie Bergman saga - I am also going thru the process of modifying all of my freebies to be no-mod no-resell

Sorry about this - if anyone wants to use one in a build or pass it on to a friend - IM me in world and we discuss your rquirements on a per request basis.

The whole concept of what is now called Intellectual Property is actually fairly recent, though many of the threads that have gone into it are millennia old. The rights granted by Copyright, Patents, Trademarks, and other monopolies on the distribution and sale of information are not property in the sense that physical objects are. For the longest time they were direct grants from a monarch... royal charters and appointments... or they were maintained by literal force of arms by a guild. It's only in the last few hundred years that they've turned into something that can be bought and sold as if they were physical objects... and the reason for this is that the success of trade as a mechanism to encourage the creation of physical wealth and property led to the idea that making information the same kind of property would have the same effect.

And it has, it's been a tremendously successful tactic.

But every right granted to a creator is a right removed from the public domain. And the public domain is everyone else, so this is a balancing act. When you're looking at whether transferring a right from the public to the private domain, you have to ask... what are the benefits to society from creators having this right? What are the costs?

SL is a fascinating experiment with what the advocates of strong digital rights management are calling for... the process of legally enforcing the integration of property rights into information at a low level, such that the laws of physics enforce the laws of men. In SL, this kine of strong DRM is baked into the laws of physics... with a valiant but flawed attempt at preserving the right of first sale through the no copy/transfer permission set. And there appear to already have been instances of the negative consequences of strong DRM showing up.

In this case the right being demanded is the right to put something only partially into the public domain. So long as there are social mechanisms to counter the behaviour that's causing the problem (and I was really serious about picketing vendors who are doing things with your property you don't approve of) they really should be given a chance to work before even calling for more restrictions on the public domain.

i think it would simply depend on the item luminia... but the creator would have option of setting "transfer -- however you want and for however much you want" or "no sale above X"

if you only wanted things you could resell later, then only buy things with full transfer. If this is a desirable setting, i.e. if people think it will help them sell more of an item than marking it "no resale", then you'll see vendors use full transfer

And thus another loss to the public domain from overreaction.

A freebie that's "no mod" does nothing to teach newbies how the world works. A pool of things people can take apart and see how they go together is an important part of the public domain in Second Life.

And overreaction? There are people who have worked on software that's been basically public works for years, whose response to Apple and Microsoft taking their software and using it in products that make the millions... and the original creator, who doesn't even get a free copy of Windows or OSX, says "Good for them, I wish they'd used more of it". I'm one of those people, and I just can't understand this need for the tightest possible control.

My own scripts in SL are BSD licensed, which is only a sliver of ego from purely public domain.

that is the only purpose of the permissions system, what other is there? the creator absolutely should have defining control over the distribrution of their item.

I agree that there may be some overreaction - but I think many of the reactions are understandable. Personally, if it were my creations that I was giving out as freebies, I would most certainly NOT want people selling them and making a profit. I would not mind if they gave it out for free either. I also would want people to be able to learn how to make something cool, so if I was able to make something cool, I'd let people have mod rights... but then again, if I was able to make something cool, I'd probably sell it

I think it is infact you that have to ask yourself what are the benefits and costs of something not being allowed to be resold as that is what this thread is about. please tell me what are the costs to the public domain of not being able to resell something i made freely available?

Anything that isn't completely closed source can be said to be "only partially in the public domain". It's not a very useful description of the situation, because it characterizes things in rather black and white terms.

You could just as easily (and accurately) say that people are demanding the right to put milder restrictions on their work than what is presently necessary in order to curb this sort of abuse.

Licenses such as the Creative Commons were created specifically because "anyone can do anything at all with my work" does not always (or even usually) reflect how people intend their work to be used, even in the real world, even when the work is meant to be used without compensation. There is a need, in both SL and RL, for finer granularity than that, if for no other reason than the fact that not everyone makes things free for exactly the same reasons.

It's not a desire for the "tightest possible control" ... it's a desire "the loosest possible control needed to accomplish what the creator set out to accomplish, but no more".


As far as system versus social restraints are concerned, I think it's clear that social restraints aren't being terribly effective in SL. Certainly not at present, nor do I foresee them doing so for a long time to come (basically, SL would have to lose the "just a game, get a real life" stigma, the creator's stakes would have to be high enough for there to be a real threat of consequences, and there would probably have to be a few high profile examples made).

So lets see basicly someone is mad at people reselling freebies being passed out? I think thats whats being said here.. as far as I read it is. Ok here is my out look on this... If someone made something and gave it to me why can't I resell it? If someone put a box of their things they made out and I took a copy why can't I resell it? If I paid 1L for the box of stuff .. Why can't I resell it? I mean its mine now and I should beable to resell it long as I didn't really alter it any... Oh and someone said something about a book ealier I think


I go to a store and buy a book .. I have all means of right to resell it back to the book store or to someone eles long as I don't alter it to make it look like I made it or I make copy of it and started to sell it on the internet for proifit.

I just think people are so tight up anymore.. if you don't want your freebies resold for more .. Then don't make freebies to put out. For once its the property of the other person long as they are not breaking any copyright laws (If there is any) they can resell it f they wanted.

SO put simple don't make freebies or give out things if you don't want them resold.. I don't really know who would want to do that.. but slapping no mod/no tranfer on freebies things isn't going to help. For I along with others collect freebies and give them out to new people.. So if you put a no tranfer on it then that would never be done.. and where are you left with helping new people? Oh let me take you all over this new place you never been to and get you all this free stuff.. cause the stupid owner of it slapped no tranfer on it so I just can't up and give it you .. As for the no mod .. What if the new person say wanted to change something on his free av he got from the freebie box? He can't.. Oh sure he could ask you for a moddable copy.. BUT FREE MEANS FREE! I mean I'm not going to have someone give me a free clay statue irl and say oh if you want one to paint that you have to come to me for a different one you have to paint.. SO WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO DO THE SAME THING IN SL WITH DAMN FREEBIES! GET OFF YOUR FUCKING HIGH HORSES AND DEAL WITH IT.... As I said before if you had problems with this .. Don't make or give out freebies..

Another rant from your friendly neighbor fox <^^>