Furniture and the Copy Permission

Alright. I'll give you credit that my OP wasn't worded in as good a way as it could have been. I've said words to that effect a number of times in the thread. I actually tried to rewrite one of the questions in a way that would be understood, but I didn't find a form of words that couldn't be misunderstood. I ought to have started the thread with something like post #52.

Btw, you didn't say that in your first response. You merely talked about the way you'd like it to be, which isn't the same thing at all.

Anyway, the thread hasn't told me much on the whole. A couple of people think that SL *should* be 'buy one, use many', one even saying that he thinks it's a basic right, and a couple of people thinking that it shouldn't be that and that it's entirely down to the creator/seller's wishes.

Phil, I think your real question is this:

Does "copy" mean rez as many as you like or does "copy" mean you can USE ONE copy and still have a backup in inventory just in case you mess up a modification or the asset servers have it for snack one day?

The debate here is over what "copy" means in terms of buyer permissions.

Unfortunately, some of the discussion here did go that way, but it's because my OP wasn't as good as it could have been. That wasn't my real question though, but a 'backup' permission (the 2nd of your "copy" descriptions), would be incredibly good.

Landlord Hat:

Place copy version, over and over again....because I CAN. Because creator states that I can.

Buy a non-copy version, place it. Go back to store....buy another...place it. Go back to store....buy another....place it. Because creator states that's the way it works.

No moral/ethical values placed on above practices.

Freebies......ZERO.

moral/ethical value placed on that.

Asking for a copy version? Never had the guts to do that. Assume that if you purchase a zillion items over and over in their store, for weeks on end, and they never said "thank you"....they sure as hell aren't going to offer you a copy version for your convenience.

moral/ethical dilemma? not really.....I wanted their stuff.

Landlord hat too

I was a cheapskate so I made my own furniture for my skyboxes (which is how I ended up in the buisness I'm in). But there was one item I kept going back and buying another of as I needed them - a tiki bar that I placed on the rooftop beach. Eventually I made my own and I still have a load of the bought ones in my inv.

I'll take a stab at the actual question you're asking. I would say there are probably an indeterminate number of people who think they should have to pay for one copy of an item and then have as many copies as they like. Some answers on this thread indicate that.

MY opinion is I *prefer* transfer items because there have been many times I want to transfer an item to an alt, give it away, etc. So as a buyer, I would be in the group who do not have the mindset of those you're asking about.

However, as Mickey said, for me, ethics don't have anything to do with it. I see it as a merchant's decision and if I see something I want, regardless of permissions, I buy it.

After reading this thread, however, I may set all my items as copy and see if I get more sales.

This is a good point, the copy permission does allow multiple copies and in some items it's expected, textures being a fine example. The permissions system is limited and some people's intention of making a copy item is not the same as another person's but if that's the case they should advertise some sort of license prior to purchase. Texture makers do this by saying you shouldn't sell their textures as is, and that message gets across.

There is enough quality copiable furniture available that I really don't have to consider furniture that isn't copiable. I would only have to consider something else if I had a dire need for something specific that only very few merchants were selling. It's not based on what I think I deserve, or what I think the creator deserves. It's based on the fact that furniture to my specifications is readily available to me, so why buy something that isn't to my specifications?

Just to throw into the mix:

When I was new I purchased my first bed on SL. I purchased it because it was gorgeous and the type of "dream bed" I would love to have in my RL home - flowing canopies being one.

I didn't know permissions from a hole in the wall then, so didn't even know to look, and if I had, I wouldn't have known what they meant.

I thought the designer's store was huge when I first visited but I met the designer (through these forums, actually) and told her how much I cherished that bed. Turns out at the time I purchased the bed, she was just starting out.

Fast forward and her store has grown and is amazing - layout as well as products. From following this thread, I went over to her store yesterday to see what permissions she offers as she certainly looks as if she's been successful.

Now here's one I've never seen - the *only* permission she puts on her furniture is transfer. A caveat here is her products are heavily scripted for color change, multiple animations for everything (beds, baths, living rooms). I still think she has the most amazing furniture and almost purchased a vanity set while I was there because it was so unique, but I don't currently have the prims to use it.

My point being, apparently there are shoppers who run the gamut in SL in their permission preferences.

(I know that doesn't particularly answer your question, Phil, but it was the first time I'd seen furniture with only transfer permissions.)

It does make sense for items to be only transfer, so that people can't make a mess of them and ask the creator to fix it. But I've always set my stuff to mod, although it's hardly ever needed. I think the main use of it is tinting items. Retexturing them would usually ruin them, especially non-sculties with sharp corners, and they can't get the old textures back if they don't care for the result. But tinting/colouring is a good reason to set items as mod. Of course, some items need to be editable for size - rugs and pictures, for instance - but not a lot. I'm not often asked to sort something out that a customer has made a mess of, and I've sold six figures of items, so I don't think that no-mod, as a protection against being called out, outweighs the mod benefits to the user.

Without getting much deeper past page 3 of this thread, yes, I do believe I have the right to rez as many copies as I like of a copiable item that I purchased. I will pay a premium for the copiable item, because ultimately the issue for furniture makers is about lost sales.

So what if I put it into a bunch of apartments? It's no one's business what I do with the copies. If you are worried about something being copied dozens of times over, price it to reflect your imagined loss.

But realize that most people who are renting places that are already furnished are not going to remain there into perpetuity. Most people move on and eventually buy their own stuff. As Isablan said, it is free advertising. It's not as if the item was actually transferred to the tenant. When the tenant leaves, they can shop at your place if they liked it enough.

Hi Cristalle. Thank you for your post. My OP was widely misunderstood - I could have written it better. It isn't about rezzing many copies of an item that's set to copy. Nobody disputes that, except for those times when the creator sells full perm items with stated restriction - e.g. textures.

The question I intended wasn't anything to do with perms - it was to do with what people believe they should have a right to - like some people believe that everything in SL should be free.

I'm not talking about perms in a technical sense. I stated that I believe that I have the right to copy anything that I deliberately purchased as copiable.

When it comes to furniture, I have explicitly purchased stuff that I could copy to put into my rentals. I paid several furniture makers a premium so that I could use their stuff. I have put in multiple copies of items across my properties, although very few would be considered in the "dozens of copies" range. I don't see why I should have to buy hundreds of the same item in a digital space, especially when it will be next to worthless when trying to transfer. It's an inventory nightmare, and I don't have the energy to deal with trying to sell each item. I would rather just have one copy for inventory if I decide to get out of the business, or scale down.

I have an arrangement with one guy whose items I resell. I didn't buy his stuff, but when using it in this particular development, he gets a fraction of the rent. He is a friend and I'm happy to give him the advertising. I'm sure the rentals have paid for the furniture multiple times over by now, but he gets nothing if the place is empty.

You actually said, "I do believe I have the right to rez as many copies as I like of a copiable item that I purchased.", which implies the copy perm. After that, I don't understand what you're saying. If you deliberately bought something as copiable, then it must be set to copy and of course you have the right to use as many as you like - unless the seller states limitations.

What I was trying to get at is, does anybody believe that 'buy one use many' *should* be the way everything is in SL - like some people believe that everything in SL *should* be free of charge. Permissions don't enter into the question or answers.

It is such a sweeping statement to say that that is the way everything "should" be. As a fellow businessperson, the answer to your question should be an obvious "no."

But when I make a specific bargain for a specific trait, I'm going to make the most of it how I see fit. The only reason why I never approached you to obtain copiable furniture, Phil, was because I knew from reading here that you wouldn't do it. So I gave my money to others who would. That's the free market. I believe we should let the market work, and people will price their stuff differently.

It's nice to know that you did think of me You were right, though - I don't do it.

Yes, it would be a sweeping statement, but that's what I wanted to know. Unfortunately, I wrote the OP in such a way that it was widely misunderstood. There really are people who make the sweeping statement that everything is SL should be free. There may be people who would make the statement that everything in SL shoud be 'buy one, use many' (a phrase I picked up from this thread), and that people should never have to buy 2 of something when they want to actually use 2 of it. It was a question that came up in my mind but, unfortunately, I didn't ask it in a very understandable way.