Making No-Copy more functional.

Content providers face a tough decision when they wish to sell their creations. Do I make it no copy with transfer permissions or should I give people the ability to use this in many instances without the right of transfer... Either option is undesirable to buyers.

I propose that the inventory system be changed to allow no-copy object to be linked to other sections in your inventory. This would allow objects, clothing and other appearance modifications to be worn with in many different combinations without manually changing them. If the orriginal object were to be given away or sold those links would be removed, or made inactive in the case of lending. This gives most of the functionality of No-Transfer objects without limiting the user from reselling or giving away that object.

No transfer has its place in other aplications, but not usually not in the case of a buyer/seller relationship.


Any other suggestions?

I agree that the current system has few options that work well for everyone. Having multiple links to the same object in your inventory would definitely be handy, especially for switching outfits which aren't mutually exclusive but remove all your attachments anyway.

At the very least, an "Allow Giving Back To Creator" option accompanying No Transfer would be handy for allowing refunds. I don't like refusing refunds for my items because I had to make them copy/no transfer (not that it's come up yet) but the current system leaves me no choice.

I certainly like this idea. I know I have several outfits I have put together from pieces of other outfits. Most of the time I also include the accessories I like to wear in the outfit folders, including hair, jewelry and shoes. If they are copy/no-transfer then all is good, but the no-copy items I have to move between outfits before changing, or I will have to reattach them individually.
Though I prefer copy/no transfer over no-copy/transfer (especially since I accidentally delete things all the time...thank god, or LL, for the trash can), I can understand the dilemma that crafters face. I would like to see a solution that lets me create my outfits, but still protects their and their customer’s interests.

Revisiting this looking for more suggestions ;0

If you were selling something, would you like to be able to sell an item with a limited number of copies per owner which become inactive or are removed when the main object is transfered?

Example. You create a new chair, and wish to allow people to place many copies around their home and also wish to allow people to give your chair away as a gift. You do not want to allow unlimited copies of this item to be circulated cutting into sales.

You set the chair to be Limited Copy(10) and allow Limited Transfer and when the owner decides to give the chair to their friend UserB all copies in world and in inventory are removed..

This would imply that objects are linked to their representation in inventory, and would probably be quite the hurdle to impliment, but I think it's a good idea.

Again if anyone has any other suggestions, ideas, whatevers to offer on this topic or similar please reply.

Yes, I love the idea of virtually linking outfits. Maybe even having an "outfit" object that's just a list of items?

We definitely need a broader permissions sytem. This seems like a decent enough proposal.

I dont see any negatives in having a "link" or "shortcut" to a no-copy object in your inventory. That way it could reference it whenever it was needed; for example a no-copy shirt could reside in your 'shirts' folder, but be worn when more than one outfit was dragged to the av. (its link or shortcut could exist in say, Outfit 1 and Outfit 2, etc.).

I'm sure there are more uses for this, than that; and I still cannot see any negatives in an implementation like that.

This has been suggested a bunch of times and I completely agree that it's sorely needed. People should be able to instance an inventory item in as many folders as they like without the creator having to allow them to make actual copies or deny transfer rights. I'm all for it.
Make a proposal and I'll definitely vote for it when I get some votes back.

While it's nto a bad idea, you COULD just sell a pack of ten chairs, instead.

I was directed to this proposal on the vote page, and I think it's a good start. It needs a little more recognition.

http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=88



It's similar if not exactly the same to my original base idea, only stated more clearly...

Thank you Lora Morgan for this proposal.

I would imagine this could be havoc to database management and create lots of lag.

Countersuggestion:

Allow set-next-next user permissions.

So you, as a developer, can pick what the next person's perms are, and what the perms are for anyone they give it to.

Use:
Transfer for next person, non-transfer for following.
Example:
I license person A a script. I allow that person to sell the script, but I don't want to worry about the script being copied and given away.

I wouldn't reccomend this being implimented in the next update... I would like to consider this a long term goal..