Furniture. No, really.

Rezzing multiple copies of copyable furniture is not abuse. That is why it is copyable. This is pretty much a given and understood in the furniture business in Second Life which is why copyable furniture generally is priced higher. There are many furniture stores that have both copyable and non-copyable versions of the same furniture with the copyable furniture being priced significantly higher than the non-copyable version for this very reason.

I'd rather buy trans/no copy. I tend to go through phases where I decorate in different styles, and have yard sales to ditch the stuff I'm done with. And I guess I never really thought about modifiable furniture. I'm too lazy to deal with changing poses unless they're in my AO. If a couch is brown and I'd rather have it in green, I won't buy it. I don't want to deal with changing it. Sort of like my RL furniture. I buy it in the color I like.

Of course you're right, and I fully agree with you. Personally I don't really see the problem with a landlord rezzing hundreds of copies of a single item, but it seems most furniture makers are quite concerned about this happening. I accept Phil's assertion that the seller's decision is simply a business one, aimed at maximizing profit. I question whether the bulk of furniture buying is done by landlords, but I've never been a seller, so I must defer to those who have experience in this area.

One thing I find very interesting is that house sellers are more likely to offer copy than transfer permissions, even though houses are subject to the same type of usage as furniture. I'm not sure why there's a difference... perhaps because most houses are large enough that they require a rez-box to assemble? (And as mentioned before, rez-boxes and no-copy are a risky combination.)

IMO, the more copies of something (legally) rezzed in world, the better. Isn't it better a product is in 100 houses than 10? It's like viral marketing.

I accept that you don't see a problem with a landlord buying one item and rezzing hundreds of copies of it, but you might begin to see things a little differently if you are the creator/seller of that item. The bulk of furniture buying isn't done by landlords, but that doesn't even come into it.

If you can give me a good reason why someone should be able to buy one item of furniture from me and have a hundred copies of it rezzed and in use, I'll consider changing the perms. Or...

If you bought, say, a sex sofa from me, why would you want more than one rezzed? Or...

If you want 2 armchairs in your living room, why shouldn't you pay for 2 armchairs for your living room?

I don't do houses, but I think they are often copyable because it's very easy and common for people to mess them up, especially when rezzing and positioning them.

Viral marketing works best when the person 'hearing' doesn't already have the item

(Note: Before making my argument, let me simply state that I fully respect and support a creator's right to make the permissions choices that suit them, for whatever reason. I debate the topic simply because it interests me. )

Unlike goods in the physical world, having multiple copies of something does not require any additional work or resources from the seller. The creator's work represents a physical object, but in reality is software and data.

A user making infinite copies of software/data has no effect on the seller except for the possibility of lost sales. Because we are discussing no-transfer items rather than full perm, the only lost sale is to the same customer.

This closely parallels the case of a user having multiple computers, and wanting the same software on each. Some software sellers require a separate paid licence for each machine. Adobe is an example; when I upgrade my computer later this week, I will have to remember to de-activate Dreamweaver on the older computer to free up that license. Other sellers choose to license their software by the user rather than the machine, so that the user can install it on as many machines as they have.

As a buyer, both of software and of stuff in Second Life, having the ability to have multiple copies in use is of great value to me. On the flip-side, having to deal with copy limits and activation woes is something I consider extremely aggravating. For this reason, I make the choice to spend my SL money only on things that have copy permissions. In the real world, I have made the choice to no longer buy software with such limited copy restrictions.

So, assuming the seller's motive is to maximize sales in terms of dollars/lindens rather than units sold, the question is whether the loss of sales from customers who will not buy no-copy items is outweighed by the gains you make by charging separately for each copy.

I would think that most furniture sales are to individuals who will rez at most 2-3 copies of something, and therefore I would expect furniture sellers to make more money by offering both copy/no-transfer and transfer/no-copy (with c/no-t of course costing more). But the fact that so many furniture sellers have chosen to only offer no-copy items suggests that they think most buyers want to have a large number of copies rezzed simultaneously.

My question to no-copy sellers: Is your choice based on actual experience? Have you tried selling both c/no-t and t/no-c versions, and found that you made less money than when you sell only t/no-c? Or is your choice based on supposition and generally-held beliefs that offering no-copy items will result in less money coming in?

(Closing note: Again, I debate this out of intellectual curiosity, not out of any disrespect for seller's choices. Phil, I do appreciate you sharing your views on the matter... you've given me a better understanding of the thinking behind not offering copyable items.)

This same argument is used to justify pirating software or downloading unpaid music. It reduces the value of intellectual property to the extent that it may not be worth the effort to create it. That is, the additional copies aren't worth a lot to you, but if nobody is willing to pay for them then maybe they shouldn't be created at all.

Additional copies of furniture have a cost to the creator you are not accounting for. If you create hundreds of copies then that design is more stale than it otherwise would be. That is, it's less desirable because it is everywhere. That, and of course the lost opportunity for repeat sales.

I have no problem with creators charging extra for copy-able creations. I understand there is a real cost involved. I also respect the decision not to offer copy-able creations.

That said, I don't like no-copy items, so if the item isn't available, even at a higher cost, then I'm less likely to buy it.

The other reality is that the creator/seller pays quite a significant amount of real money to LL every month, just to be able to have a store. I pay for a whole sim, for instance. That's on top of the cost of buying the land.

My reply above applies here too. But it's not just lost sales to people who already bought an item. It's possible lost sales to other people too:- (A) great sexbed! (B) I can rez one in your place if you like. (A) Terrific! TY! (C) erm... I don't suppose you could also rez one in my place could you? (B) Sure - np

There it is - right there. WHY do you think you should be able to rez multiple instances of, say, an armchair when you only paid for one? That's one of the questions I asked, but hasn't been answered.

I'm not really talking about the potential loss of sales, although that's very real. I'm asking why you think you should be able to rez multiple instances when you only paid for one. Why do you think you should have the ability to rez a sexbed in the homes of all of your friends when you only paid for one?

But I asked why you would want more than one copy rezzed and in use. That doesn't answer it. Why do you think you should be able to pay for one and have as many as you like? Leave out all the stuff from the sellers point of view, and comparing it with this or that in RL. I'm asking why you think you should be able to do it.

I haven't taken anything as judgemental, or anything like that. I too am interested in it, which is why I started a new thread on it - starting from one of your statements

For all the ins and outs, all I want to know *why* you think that people should be able to pay for one and have as many as they like.