fair use and no mod objects

Yes - but you can always inspect an object, and see who created which parts. If the root prim is created after the main build by a different builder, then you can still check to see who made all of the other prims. (Go through the options in the right-click pie menu).

And someone who rents out a lot of accommodations needs only to buy one sex bed to put one in every accommodation?

The makers of transferrables ususally have methods of dealing with it when scripts need resetting. (like when your xcite breaks, you go in for a replacement). Ususally though, Sexbeds are sold moddable, because they need to be able to add poses.. so the reset issue doesn't apply here.

That's what I was thinking of then

Except that's not what my customers would want in the case I was describing: they would much prefer to be able to transfer it than to be able to copy it. To try to deal with that together with the need to make the thing no-mod, I put in the introduction to the instruction notecard that I welcomed requests for customization, but I know that's a pain for customers (and that's why I have so damned few shoes in my wardrobe, but that's a whole separate rant). So, the result is not entirely satisfactory, but the best I could think of doing--and I thought long and hard about it.

This kind of thread seems to crop up pretty frequently. And I can never resist jumping in.
Snowman Jimmy has already clearly said everything that needs to be said. But I still can't stop myself.

I assume that other people who make and sell things in SL are like me and they want to maximize their profits.

What is for sale is what you will get if you buy it. If it is not exactly what you want you can:
1. Try to find it some where else.
2. Figure out how to make it yourself.
3. Settle for what you can get.
4. Tell the creator what you really want; they might find a way to sell it to you.
5. Advertise for it in products wanted.

Your objects are at risk of being stolen if they're modify enabled. But this isn't the only issue. There is the problem that occurs when somebody sees a modified version of an object in-world and then visits the store to buy one. They then realize that the bought item isn't the same and then send death threats to the poor innocent creator.

It's just way too much drama!.

In my mind, a lot of it comes down to the way SL handles permissions in general. I can fully understand the creator not wanting me to muck up their creation (or see the details of the object itself), but their should at least be a way for me to do things like strip scripts and such out of a no-mod object -- i.e. a set of permissions to cover the 'object/features/texture' tabs and a separate set relating to the contents of the object or the object pieces.

This issue always comes up when we discuss accidently buying a beautiful piece of jewelry that ends up being Bling but didn't say so up front. Similar case would be for furniture. If I was creating it, I would not want someone to be able to change the "look" of the chair/sofa/etc, but I would want to let them add or change the poses within the furniture.

To the best of my knowledge, SL gives us no way to do things on that kind of a level. Maybe if they could figure out how to let us mod just some of the linked parts without having mod on the entire object (mod on the pose balls only or a special object that was linked in that contain the bling scripts someone might want to rip out).

To the OP, I fully understand what you want and have been frustrated many times over at wanting similar things specfically for the instances I just described. At this time, from what I know of the way the permissions work, I just don't see any way around it.

Mod items are a potential customer service issue.

No-Copy mod items that are messed up by the customer result in requests for refunds and new copies.

You can of course make it Mod/copy/no-trans

But of course some people complain about items that are no-transfer too ...

Mod items are a potential customer service issue.

No-Copy mod items that are messed up by the customer result in requests for refunds and new copies.

You can of course make it Mod/copy/no-trans

But of course some people complain about items that are no-transfer too ... And you cant really give refunds on trasnfer items as easily.


I think it should always be possible to send an item back to the original creator ---- Even "no-trans"

it would help.

(Several posters used the same argument)

That's a hollow excuse and a misunderstanding of what the modify permission is for; mod or no-mod doesn't really make it any harder to recreate something. The viewer can be modified to display the prim params for no mod prims (or all prims for that matter) along with texture and sculptmap UUIDs in under 5 minutes. "No modify" simply means "can not be modified", it is not a copy protection tool.

The only thing no-mod is guaranteed to accomplish is to frustrate custumers when they buy something and find a need to modify something for whatever reason but can't.

When it comes to bypassing permissions in order to make better use of a no-mod purchase, things do become complicated because the consumer ends up with a full permission recreation of the original.

As long as someone is clear on the fact that it's preferable to get the creator to make the change for you, otherwise that the original purchase can't be traded away if they recreate a copy (or used multiple times if the original was no-copy), or can't give away copies of it I really can't find much fault with it. The original item was paid for and personal use isn't going to hurt a soul.

Col Sanders won't give me his special recipe!

People who are willing to pay enough can probably get almost anything they want made to their own specifications. The rest of us have to settle for what we can afford.

I think people that can't be bothered learning how to make items also can't be bothered manually replicating an object by copying all those parameters.

I had somebody once copy an object of mine manually and he couldn't be bothered copying the parameters. The copy was crap. If modify had been enabled then he could easily have used a freely available script to copy the object easily.

But as I've already stated, this isn't just about preventing people from stealing your objects. It's also about making sure your objects remain your objects and aren't bastardized by somebody that has poor aesthetics.

I don't want anybody giving my super cool spaceship a pink coat of paint and then flying over the mainland with it. It's difficult raising awareness of your objects in Second Life. So when somebody does see *my* spaceship then I hope that they really do see *my" spaceship and not some big pink penis with wings with my name on it.

That raises another issue of people actually attaching their own prim to your modify enabled object so you no longer get credit for it.

Hell, even releasing a single cube with modify enabled is asking for trouble. People can use it for all kinds of evil deeds. Believe me, I'd had it done to me and I'm still seeing a shrink about it.

Modify=A big barrel of worms (with teeth)

...and guns)

It no longer is "your spaceship" if you're putting it up for sale, the copy anyone buys belongs to the buyer.

Don't put things up for sale if that's something you can't live with. You traded away your absolute control over your creation the moment you slapped a price tag on it.

Oh no I didn't!.

The only time I trade absolute ccntrol over my creation is the moment I enable modify. That's something I'm not willing to do for L$2000.

Oh no he didn't. That is precisely the point. By not offering mod perms, absolute control has not been surrendered.

But not the right to change it, if it was no-mod.

Hence, I suppose, the "fair use" in the thread title: When a creator sells an object no-modify, that amounts to a specific license for its use. But it's a fair question, I think, whether the creator really means to restrict the license in all the ways entailed by the permissions system. There are only so many ways to set Next User Permissions, and it appears that with no-mod prims, that next owner can't remove copy-perm scripts from the object. That's a perfectly valid intention for a creator to have, but short of making the prims be modifiable, there'd be no way for the Creator to use the permissions system to grant that ability if their intent were different.

(This is far from the most frustrating part of the permissions system, in my view, but it's this particular semantics that's causing the OP's concern, at least as I understand it.)

I prefer to cook my own chicken thanks

You should learn to raise 'em too. You'll have full permissions then.

There are some people out there who have no interested in business, hurting the bottom line of product maker but can and do improve upon a product for personal use because they can and no one will notice.
Sometimes there are people who run business don't care or have time to deal with their consumer needs and assume the worse in everyone yet want to charge as much as they can get away with and aren't worth dealing with.
Personally if I was in business and someone could improve upon a product I was selling or wanted to use something for non-commercial purposes and they said so I would have no issue with that.

Exactly Snowman. It's very frustrating to be forced to accept the unknown capabilities of a scripted vehicle that looks absolutely awesome.

The most fun i have ever had was to buy a 100l KCC Beanaro (which is a mod object with no mod scripts), i then removed the main script and rescripted it to handle like a Dominus.

I'm 100% certain that my doing so has not hurt the KCC bottom line. btw, i happen to love the slightly grungy look of the KCC beanaro

Compile a list of their names and create an ethics verification program for Linden Lab and business owners.

Oh hai, where's your shop? I'd like to see these marvelous creations of yours, your profile seems to be devoid of a location to view/buy your stuff.