DON'T give orig creators full perms on returned creations

In response to vote proposal:

https://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1456

I want to make know the other point of view. First the proposal above which has already recieved a number of votes seems to think that if an object with limited permissions is given to its original creator that it should have full permissions restored. If the entire situation is comprised that a creator accidentally gives someone the ONLY copy of an item and forgot to set its permissions this would mean that when the other party gives it back NO ONE has permission to edit. In this ONE RARE situation there is a small ammount of merit.

But the proposal as a whole has many situations where it would be bad.

Think of an instance where you recieved a full mod item of some very simplistic nature. You retexture it, tweak it, and even end up editing the scripts inside it to provide a lot more functionality. Very little of the original creators concept remain. Its YOUR work now in all regards. It just happens since you didnt relink a new root prim it has the original creators name in the creator field. To protect YOUR hard efforts you remove the permissions flags and start selling it. The original creator buys one. Do you want him/her to now have full permissions on YOUR work and be able to resell it for profit?

Think of an instance where you have aquired a full mod CUBE from someone that happens to have a texture on it you like. Maybe it had some morphs applied to it to get a shape you like. You duplicate this cube and use it in a build because you liked its design. It happens to be that this cube was the most convienent one to link as the root prim thus the object as a whole now has that cubes creator listed as the whole objects creator. You sell this magnificant FULLY ORIGINAL creation that just happens to use ONE PRIM someone else made. Do you think that the object, if it happens to ever be purchased by that original creator, should become full modifiable, copyable and RESELLABLE giving someone else full rights to your work?

Now that very first situation of a mistaken transfer. Its sad. It happens. I've done it myself more than once and one time it was on a script i spent hours writing. I didnt blow up. I went out and restocked on Mt Dew and wrote it up as a mistake to try avoiding. First time i did it i was frustrated. 2nd time (with the script) i realized how much this annoyance actually protected me from possible loss of my IP rights.

If you DISAGREE with my point of view and support the voting propsal I'm not interested in hearing from you honestly. Please follow the link and show your support with votes and remain silent. There is really only ONE situation where that proposal has a benifit.

On the other hand I'm quite interested if anyone wants to voice their opinion here AGAINST the proposal. I'm not wasting one of my own votes to discredit it so i will not be starting a counter proposal. Just add your name in agreeance and if you have additional situations where this proposal is a Bad Idea (tm) please share.

Disclaimer: by responding to this forum thread you agree to the following terms. Regardless of anything said by you, your act of responding in and of itself means you do not want the proposal to pass and each response you make can be considered by Linden Labs as a vote AGAINST proposal number 1456.

I love legalites =-)

Luckily, legally speaking, you can't obligate LL to consider this a vote against.

That said, good point. I however don't think it's quite as bad as you've laid it out. Creator permissions being restored when an object is given back to the creator should apply to each resource individually. IE if I give something back to the creator with a script in it I created and the script is only set to copy, then the creator of the object won't get full perms on that script, only copy. The object creator would have full perms on the object and anything in the object created by him, but not on the script the second person added to it.

That still doesnt protect your work if you alter a fully modable object to the point its now original. alterations does not ever change the creator tag. Nothing does. And if it was implimented would diminish someones ability to create derivative works.

What the original voting proposal person did was work on a house and a friend with mod rights took it. And it aquired the 'next owner' permissions as is defined in the system quite understandably. And gave it back to the original owner with those reduced permissions.

The fault in this falls in the fact someone was irresponsible and had not been saving in-progress takes of the object which would have reduced the loss. They also gave mod rights to someone that made a mistake.

All these things are easily avoidable. We dont want to mess up legitimate uses of a security feature for the sake that they were careless.

The other side of the issue is to fully support MY idea it would be nice to have one of those Creative Commons restrictions. Where you could give an object to someone and mark it in a manner where no permissions can be removed. This would fully open source an item permanantly providing yet another method to protect a creators wishes though is slightly off topic here. Oh well i started the thread i can talk about whatever i want =)

hehehe

And as you responded in THIS forum rather than creating your own to respond, yes you have agreed to my terms that all responses are an automatic vote FOR my idiology. Ty =)

You really do have a good point and are articulate about supporting it. Unfortunately you felt the need to play mind games which is irritating.

Why not just have the permissions restored on direct transfers (I give an object directly to you)? I see no reason why items being sold or given via a script would need to do it really.

There's a very similar fault in your reasons for disliking the proposal.

You state that re-instating creator permissions would be bad for someone who used an open script/prim to create a closed object. Wouldn't it also be irresponsible if a new creator forgot to create a "new script" in which to copy/paste the original open script (eliminating the old creator from the loop?)

And in the case of your one-prim wonder-object which is colored red with full permissions.... when you decide to get rich selling a green-colored version, it would be irresponsible to not simply copy all the prim parameters into a fresh prim created by yourself (all the params are plainly visible in a full-permission object).