FREE means FREE
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
11-30-2005 09:35
Some elaborations: From: Me Create an object that someone can give as a gift, with the recipient having "copy" right. This can be emulated to some extent by a "coupon" system, but I haven't seen that implemented except for coupons that require intervention by the seller (eg, you buy the object, then drop the coupon on the seller's profile and they refund you). From: someone Create a texture that can be effectively used by builders but not pirated. There's another huge thread on this. It seems to me that if you sell a texture "no trans", then an object textured with it should also be "no trans". If you sell a texture "no copy", then the object should be "no copy". The problem comes wit textures sold to other vendors... and the "gift box" second-generation rights I suggested should solve that. From: someone Create a gesture for your own use containing an animation you don't have full rights to. This one I don't understand. If I have a "no trans" animation, shouldn't I be able to put it into a gesture and that gesture would automatically be "no trans" as well? Well, I tried that, and it turned out not to be the case. From: someone Create an object that's subject to damage or loss in normal use, and so you need to retain a copy in your inventory when you use it, that can be transferred. For example... you could set "temporary copy" perms on an object, and it could be copied but the copy would only last 30 minutes after rezzing. From: someone Create an object for rent, that has a fixed lifetime in the asset server after transfer. If someone sold a gun for L$100 that vanished after 7 days, they wouldn't be doing that for very long.
|
Elspeth Withnail
Completely Trustworthy
Join date: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 317
|
11-30-2005 10:19
From: ZsuZsanna Raven I don't understand why some people cannot understand simple courtesy. FREEbies were meant to be just that...FREE. They were meant to help people. If they were made to be sold then they wouldn't have been used as FREEbies in the first place and there would be no discussion of it as there is now. FREEbies were not meant for people to resell and make a damn profit off of. Personally it has never crossed my mind to gather up all my FREEbies I have been given when I started and open up a store and sell them for ridiculous prices. It really concerns me that some people have actually done this because I had no clue until recently. I really try to think highly of my fellow SLers and everyday I hear something new that boggles my mind and makes me wonder what the hell some people are thinking doing the things they do. That, to me, really is the crux of the matter. I've read posts defending the actions of freebie sellers, and they tend to fall into either 'I like them so you're a doodie-head' or 'LOLz0r it wuz free an now its they'res and they can do whutver they want 2 wit id N00bz!'. The people defending the freebie-resellers haven't, that I've seen, managed to come up with a means of justifying it ethically, mostly because you cannot ethically justify theft, or greed, or general jackassery. Personally, if someone is reselling freebies at a profit, it tells me a few things about them. One, they probably have little or no actual skill at building/skins/anims/anything else in the game you can make a nickle off of. Two, they are morally deficient. I realize I'm phrasing that a bit inflammatorily, and neglecting the possibility that they are merely very, very stupid, but by and large a greedy thief is not going to impress me as a paragon of virtue. Three, and most important, they are parasites. I mean this in the literal sense of the word. They intend to feed on the game, not giving a damn what damage they're doing. A few cents profit is easily worth giving a newbie a poor image of the game, to them. The whole thing just leaves me shaking my head. My integrity is worth more than the micromoney these bottom-feeders are making each time they resell freebies. If you value your own honor so little that a ten-cent profit makes you drool, then you don't need to be playing this game, you need to be out on the damned street selling crack or something.
|
Compulsion Overdrive
lazy ass
Join date: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 83
|
11-30-2005 14:22
From: Argent Stonecutter The "no transfer" flag doesn't "work very well". I would much rather they did some work on fine-tuning the semantics of "copy" and "transfer" before they worry about "minimum price". Items marked no transfer are not transferable, that by definition is working very well. any other terms you may try to tag to that are irrelevant. anyway it's been nice talking with you, I am done with SL and won't return after the events that prompted me to post here, i have no reason to continue to put my efforts in to the platform. overeaction? no not realy its just a tool and it dosn't work the way i expect it to.
|
Logan Bauer
Inept Adept
Join date: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,237
|
11-30-2005 15:09
Hmm, ok, here's my new idea, feel free to poke holes in it, elaborate or revamp, ect...
A "Max Resell Price" field that the owner can fill in. Make a freebie by putting L$1 or L$0 in, or put a greater amount if necessary.
Whenever someone buys/receives an item with this flag checked, via any method other than buying the object or buying it in a box, the object IM's them:
"This object, created by ___, is set to a maximum resale value of $1. If you payed more than $1 for this object, ask the person you bought it from for a refund." - or something along those lines.
It's a bit screwy, but it would at least let the buyer know what's going on here, and seems uncircumventable to me...
|
Osprey Therian
I want capslocklock
Join date: 6 Jul 2004
Posts: 5,049
|
11-30-2005 15:22
I heartily endorse this event or product.
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
11-30-2005 15:42
From: Logan Bauer "This object, created by ___, is set to a maximum resale value of $1. If you payed more than $1 for this object, ask the person you bought it from for a refund." - or something along those lines. If I got a freebie like that I'd turf it, just because I wouldn't want to spam the person I gave it to with that message and if I didn't I'd eventually hit someone with it.
|
Logan Bauer
Inept Adept
Join date: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,237
|
11-30-2005 17:59
From: Argent Stonecutter If I got a freebie like that I'd turf it, just because I wouldn't want to spam the person I gave it to with that message and if I didn't I'd eventually hit someone with it. How about the box in the upper right hand corner that pops up saying, "An object named Object by Owner has given you 'foo'." - attach the text up there, above the "accept this or put this in my trash"  buttons...
|
Waz Perse
Registered User
Join date: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 34
|
12-01-2005 09:38
It seems this solution of permissions is really a band-aid to the problem of people not having a voice as to how their products are used and/or perhaps abused which will in time require LOTS of band-aids to cover all the eventualities.. simmer over time, the system becomes too cumbersome and demotivates people while retarding growth. From: Argent Stonecutter I'm simply giving you two examples of how the public domain would be reduced by this proposal. I fully accept that you consider these minor and irrelevant points, but they are real restrictions that don't currently exist in SL, and unlike in the real world there is no possibility of a "fair use" exemption that can be addressed on a case by case basis by a judge because there is no such mechanism. If no such mechanism exists to protect the creator and rule on disputes, why not create one? It seems what is universally needed is a system/process of justice that would include some type of jury/judge/arbiter that could decide a verdict and if the defending party is found guilty then they would also receive punishment. Voila. No? also.. as to the idea of setting a value that an item would not be sold for more than.. what about inflation or deflation effects? supply / demand? I do not think this as a solution will work.
|
Barbarra Blair
Short Person
Join date: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 588
|
12-01-2005 09:44
Why not just make things no mod and include "free object available at <>" in the name/and or description?
Actually I can see some "freebies" becoming rather rare and valuable as people drop out of the game and so on.
_____________________
--Obvious Lady
|
Logan Bauer
Inept Adept
Join date: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,237
|
12-01-2005 09:49
From: Torley Torgeson Let's travel back in time... CHRONOTUNNELLED! Request: Addition to "Community Standards" /13/12/3337/1.htmlWow, I missed that... Nice to know that Peter Linden has been working on this since 6/25/03 
|
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
|
12-01-2005 11:48
In retrospect this feature suggestion isn't well thought out as it restricts derivative works. For example, say i take the blackstreak bike and it has been resticted, retexture and rebuild it; producing a harley. I can't sell the harely because of the prims its made of. For this feature suggestion to be valid, a comparison betweeen the original object and the modified object would need to be done. This comparison would be done to determin if the object was different enough to warent this restirction being lifted. Basicly this would be regulated fare use. This sort of thing would be very difficult to be done mechanicly.
So while i see this feature suggestion as a good thing; i'm deaming it technicaly impossible.
And you can't say fare use isn't a right because it is in in copyright laws.
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river. - Cyril Connolly
Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence. - James Nachtwey
|
DoteDote Edison
Thinks Too Much
Join date: 6 Jun 2004
Posts: 790
|
12-01-2005 13:06
From my post in this redundant thread: /13/ed/74389/1.html ... So, I have another option, quite possible the very best option. Offer easy access to a list of submitted, proven, tested, approved genuine freebies. From there, it could go one of two ways, either Linden runs the program, or a group of residents runs it. I don't imagine there are THAT many freebies created everyday, so maybe a Linden could be assigned to approve these freebies. If that's the case, the freebies would need to meet some requirements, namely they shouldn't be blatant advertisements and they shouldn't include trojan-horse type scripts. A freebie tab could be added to FIND and items listed there. The resident-run freebie program could be managed the same way online SL shopping services are run. Residents would be able to search for any item, and have it delivered to them in-world. Another less user-friendly resident-run option would be to have a simple website list of freebies and the in-world location to find the freebie. Shoppers could run a freebie-check before making purchases by looking at one of these services. I think any service would need the freebie verification stage to be viable. Either a group of residents would certify the objects as genuine freebies, or a Linden could.
|
Compulsion Overdrive
lazy ass
Join date: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 83
|
12-01-2005 15:52
From: Strife Onizuka In retrospect this feature suggestion isn't well thought out as it restricts derivative works. For example, say i take the blackstreak bike and it has been resticted, retexture and rebuild it; producing a harley. I can't sell the harely because of the prims its made of. it would force it to remain free, the price to pay for not starting from scratch perhaps?
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-01-2005 17:06
From: Compulsion Overdrive it would force it to remain free, the price to pay for not starting from scratch perhaps? I thought you were "done with SL", which is why I didn't bother responding to your previous post, though I was rather at a loss to understand why you'd object to a comment about the shortcomings of "no transfer" as a social tool in a thread about the social effects of a proposed feature. Clearly you are hostile towards the idea that there is a benefit to the existence of the public domain. I wonder where you post outside this forum. On the RIAA bulletin boards, perhaps?
|
Compulsion Overdrive
lazy ass
Join date: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 83
|
12-02-2005 04:04
From: Argent Stonecutter Clearly you are hostile towards the idea that there is a benefit to the existence of the public domain. I wonder where you post outside this forum. On the RIAA bulletin boards, perhaps?
what on earth are you talking about?. I'm not sure what your comment about the RIAA was implying, if that it's i'd be against piracy you better believe I would! and that is essentialy what we are talking about here, the ability to copy something and sell it without permission. something you may be missing, if someone wanted to release something that is open source and free for the community to sell and do whatever they wanted to do with, all they would have to do is not click the box that says 'always free'. and i would have no reason to post on the RIAA board, don't assume i'm from the US.
|
Cienna Samiam
Bah.
Join date: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 1,316
|
12-02-2005 04:31
Considering you do not own anything in SL, nor do you have rights to anything anymore (thanks, new ToS!), I find this argument rather moot. Naturally, LL will not implement further control over what you perceive as your intellectual property because every instance wherein they do so is an instance that undercuts their new ToS and establishes possible grounds to ignore it as valid should they ever be in a position to find themselves in court over it.
The entire matter of how you perceive it and what real world examples you might bring to bear as 'evidence' in the discussion are irrelevant. You have no rights in SL anymore, you signed them away and committed to binding arbitration. Read your ToS. Really read it... not just the parts you think make your point when taken out of context of the whole.
People have every 'right' in SL to sell what they want, how they want. The only recourse you have today is grass roots opposition.
_____________________
Just remember, they only care about you when you're buying sims.
|
Compulsion Overdrive
lazy ass
Join date: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 83
|
12-02-2005 04:50
From: Cienna Samiam The only recourse you have today is grass roots opposition. what do you think this thread is?
|
Yuriko Muromachi
Blue Summer
Join date: 4 Jul 2005
Posts: 385
|
12-02-2005 08:04
I'm all for the additional restriction options when it comes to freebies, not because it's unfair to sell free stuff (which is if you don't want them resold), or helping newbies learn stuff by being able to modify them and such (which is a good point), but rather gives us content creators a choice to give a degree of restriction to our freebies. (a) Full unrestricted freebies for me, by that time comes that such sale restrictions will be implemented, will mean that "You can do whatever shit you want with my stuff. Sell it, eat it, make love to it, whatever. " * I know there'll be an argument regarding the poor newbies getting suckered into buying stuff they could get for free. Well too bad really, there is such a things as "Buyer beware" and all that jazz, everyone experiences a shopping screw up at least once in their real lives so why can't they in SL? At the very least the experience will teach them how to shop more carefully in the future. (b) Semi-restricted freebies will mean, "You can do whatever just don't sell it." (c) And full restriction would mean "It's free but you're not going to do anything else with it except use it. No mod, no copy. No nothing." These are the options, I would want really. If I had this kind of control, I'd make different kinds of freebies to give away (which is also cool for my none freebies)! But unfortunately there isn't. So blah.
_____________________
Silver Rose Designs: http://velvetroom.wordpress.com Please read my shop signs regarding my policies before you buy. If you can't read, then I'm very sorry for you.
|
Jacqueline Trudeau
Nogoodnik
Join date: 9 Jul 2005
Posts: 171
|
12-02-2005 08:26
From: ZsuZsanna Raven I don't understand why some people cannot understand simple courtesy. FREEbies were meant to be just that...FREE. They were meant to help people. If they were made to be sold then they wouldn't have been used as FREEbies in the first place and there would be no discussion of it as there is now. FREEbies were not meant for people to resell and make a damn profit off of. Personally it has never crossed my mind to gather up all my FREEbies I have been given when I started and open up a store and sell them for ridiculous prices. It really concerns me that some people have actually done this because I had no clue until recently. I really try to think highly of my fellow SLers and everyday I hear something new that boggles my mind and makes me wonder what the hell some people are thinking doing the things they do.
My neighbor irl gave me a ridiculously expensive genuine Louis Vuitton purse because her Mom got it for her awhile back and she never liked it. She could have sold it but gave it to me thinking I could use it and would like it. I could have just as easily sold it as well because my co-wroker at the time said "OMG that's worth like $500, you should sell it on Ebay!!" I was totally against this because it was given to me and I wasn't going to profit off of it (even though I was pretty broke at the time) I guess some people here would have tried to sell it off as soon as they got it, but to me it makes me think of getting a cool rl FREEbie and I am not selling it.
In the eyes of ethics, it is wrong to sell something that wasn't meant to be sold or was only meant to be given away...things that were meant to help a new person or a person who doesn't have much. How damn helpful is it to a new person that things that were once FREE now have a dollar amount attached to them? Oh Yes, quite helpful... i applaud your stance but ethics and simple courtesy are not so compatible with a cutthroat capitalistic system. that's the reason for the plethora of consumer fraud laws, attorney generals, etc. IRL. that few of these protections exist in SL give a glimpse of what RL would be like if the pure laissez faire advocates were allowed free reign. From: Elspeth Withnail The whole thing just leaves me shaking my head. My integrity is worth more than the micromoney these bottom-feeders are making each time they resell freebies. If you value your own honor so little that a ten-cent profit makes you drool, then you don't need to be playing this game, you need to be out on the damned street selling crack or something. word! 
_____________________
http://trudeauyachts.wordpress.com
|
Ali Maltz
Just another RL escapee
Join date: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 23
|
Public Domain, GPL and CC
12-02-2005 08:50
In RL we have the GPL (must remain free) and Creative Commons (some rights reserved) along with copyright. In SL we have full copyright (no mod/no copy/no transfer) and public domain (copy/mod/trans/free to copy), even rough approximations of some CC licenses (mod but no trans, trans but no mod). So far, there's nothing that limits commercial sale but allows free distribution.
So yes, I'd like to add my support for a "cannot be sold" flag. If I make something to be given away, I want it *given away*, for the same reason that I license (some) stuff I do in RL with Creative Commons. I want other people to view, modify, share, etc. but not make money from my work (or derivatives) unless they ask me first. Sure, sometimes I'm happy for work to go into the public domain, but we've got that already.
However, I think the price-restriction idea could be tricky. What if an item with no maximum price is placed into a box with a price-restricted item? How can the price of that total box be controlled?
"Sure, those jetboots sell for a maximum of L$50, but the laces and snazzy box I've added are worth L$1000 at *least*..."
I can see uses for a Cafepress-style system of shared profits (original creator sets their take of subsequent sales of modified objects, resellers add their own markup) but that's clearly a more difficult option to implement.
And while I'm blabbing, there's an issue with lapsed copyrights in SL. If someone's made a script, set no mod, then left the game, should that "no mod" flag be lifted? As it stands, that code will never be editable and will eventually stop working. Can/should restrictions be lifted on an account's termination? Can/should rights be transferred to a new account run by the same person?
|
Cienna Samiam
Bah.
Join date: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 1,316
|
12-02-2005 09:12
From: Compulsion Overdrive what do you think this thread is? I think this is complaining on a forum and that it doesn't really change much at all.
_____________________
Just remember, they only care about you when you're buying sims.
|
Strife Onizuka
Moonchild
Join date: 3 Mar 2004
Posts: 5,887
|
12-02-2005 09:45
From: Compulsion Overdrive it would force it to remain free, the price to pay for not starting from scratch perhaps? I've done a quick reading over of derivative works. From: someone Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. Prims aren't copyrightable, they are a format; their attributes on the other hand are copyrightable. The attributes are like words in a book, the prim is the book that binds them. The prim serves as a container for the attributes. A single attribute is like a word, it can not be copyrighted because it doesn't convey enough meaning by it self. Where as a collection of attributes can be copyrighted because they convey sufficiant meaning. The issue i'm arguing is when enough attributes are changed in a prim, the restrictions on it need to be lifted, the permissions need to reset. When enough attributes are changed it no longer is a derivative work. Required for this the textures must be changed (textures are copyright in them selves, use of them would be subject to thier own license) as well as a good number of the attributes. The question becomes: How many attributes need to be changed and how different do they need to be to break the copyright? I don't have the answer. If the permissions system is to be revamped, it needs to be done in such a way to comply with copyright dogma. It can't be one sided.
_____________________
Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river. - Cyril Connolly
Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence. - James Nachtwey
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-02-2005 11:43
From: Compulsion Overdrive what on earth are you talking about?. You seem to consider that there should be no limits to the rights of a creator, and that the only rights that the purchaser of any product that contains "intellectual assets" (I shouldn't say "intellectual property" because that carries a lot of emotional baggage associated with physical property) should have are those the creator grants them. I make my living from creating "intellectual assets", and I'm certainly interested in protecting them. I've even bought additional copies of songs when I found that I'd inadvertantly bought a pirated copy. BUT. The purpose of these rights is not "giving the creator control", it's "encouraging the creation of new works by rewarding the creator". Anything you do in this realm has to be balanced between the benefits to creators and the cost to users, because both parties have rights. From: someone I'm not sure what your comment about the RIAA was implying, The RIAA believes that it isonly fair that if you deliberately or otherwise play a copy protected work without having the right to, it would be entirely appropriate for them to take control of your own physical property and disable or even permanently damage it. The recent case where a Sony copy-protected music CD disabled parts of your Windows-based computer, could not be removed, and opened you up for further damage by making it possible for viruses to hide from scanners is just the tip of the iceberg. If you believe that creators should be granted unlimited and perpetual control over their works, regardless of the impact on users and the public domain, I can't help but wonder just how far you'd be willing to go.
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
12-02-2005 11:54
From: Ali Maltz I can see uses for a Cafepress-style system of shared profits (original creator sets their take of subsequent sales of modified objects, resellers add their own markup) but that's clearly a more difficult option to implement. That's basically what the "wrappers" proposal I've made in these threads (and just sent to Robin Linden) would accomplish. From: someone And while I'm blabbing, there's an issue with lapsed copyrights in SL. If someone's made a script, set no mod, then left the game, should that "no mod" flag be lifted? As it stands, that code will never be editable and will eventually stop working. Can/should restrictions be lifted on an account's termination? Can/should rights be transferred to a new account run by the same person? Indeed.. This is one of the most important reasons for copyrights to have a limited lifetime and for the public domain to exist. I have an idea. In exchange for stronger creator rights, you would have to apply for and recieve (automatically and for free) a UUID that would be associated with the owner of an object. You ould have as many of these as you want, using one for "Ali's Magic Carpet" and one for "Maltz Milk Balls". You would have this as a secondary UUID for rights purposes, but... you could also transfer it (sell the rights) to someone else, and if you left the game this right would be auctioned off by LL who would retain the Lindens paid for it. Copyrights that recieve no bids in a given period would be placed in the public domain. Of course you could also sell the copyright first to someone else and cash out.
|
Mike Westerburg
Who, What, Where?
Join date: 2 May 2004
Posts: 317
|
12-02-2005 11:56
It is a reason like this that we need to have the llSetObjectPermMask() and llSetInventoryPermMask() features implemented in SL.
even for bare basic freebies, there could be a simple on_rez script that asks the customer what they want to do with the object. Give em 3 options with 3 diff results: 1. Try it out - leave the internal script / object perms as is like say no copy/no mod/transfer- this would pop-up next rez until one of the other options are selected. 2. Decide to keep it- change the perms mask to whatever you want it to be, could even have the perm changer script to be self-destructive with an llRemoveInventory() call. The object becomes copy/mod/no-transfer or whatever- the control script can never be activated again. 3. Customer doesn't want to keep it and wants to resell/give away. When the object detects a new owner, the on_rez script gets cycled out again. The internal script keeps the perm settings as is but sets a limited sale price in some way shape or form, or even displays a hover-text message that says "I was only bought for 1$, do not pay more than X$ for me, contact blah blahblahhhahhaa for a lower priced copy"
I know that a setup like this would be more of a hassle and not perfect. Perhaps this setup could even break no-transfer items because of mod rights to the object. Would need to compare object creator vs owner to change rights. This won't stop someone from prim mirroring your object or copying the scripts out of it and pasting to new ones but at least they would have to work for it. The calls are there to set the perm masks on the Wiki, but they haven't been implemented yet. I have also heard of a script that breaks the no-transfer ability of an object though.....
_____________________
"Life throws you a lemon, you make lemonade and then plant the seeds"
|