starting to feel like a theif

(Yesterday I typed up a long post describing my agonizing over whether to make several scripted prim assemblies no-mod; I guess I decided it was too complicated and cancelled before posting. I'll try to make it simpler this time.)

Sometimes scripts in a product will undo modifications that a buyer may make to the item. Sometimes it's devilishly difficult to explain all the modifications that the scripts will undo.

Some prim modifications can prevent some scripts from working correctly, or make it lag-inducingly difficult for the script to figure out how to work correctly. (E.g., do I really want to check whether any prim might have been cut/sliced/skewed, etc, and then try to divine what that modification *meant* to how the script should operate now?)

Some scripted items really only make sense with transfer permissions, either because of their function in role play or because they actually need to be worn by different avatars in succession as part of their use.

I've pretty much settled on giving Modify permission for copiable objects, with a warning that whatever you change may or may not stay changed or might break other stuff, so good luck and don't delete the backup copy. For items that just don't make sense with Copy permission, I've sometimes had to remove Modify perms, too, to keep buyers from hurting themselves.

While there have been, and likely still are, server flaws that permit the copying of scrips, they can be fixed ( even if LL needs a real kick in the pants to get it done ).

Unfortunately that's not the case with textures and objects; there simply is no realistic way to prevent them from being ripped as long as LL insists upon sending the data needed to render them to your graphics card.

My point, though, was that it's really quite easy to remove annoying scripts from no-mod objects.

Items with no permissions are garbage, period. I immediately delete all non-clothing freebie items if they have no permissions. Is the creator naive enough to think every single avatar in the platform has the same body shape? Or is s/he just yet another overly protective copyright freak? It's amusing to see people slap on a no mod/no copy restriction on some simple script that's been done a billion times before and claim it their own "prized" creation.
This is the reason why I often shop at medium-sized stores. Most large stores are way too overly protective of their products. It's funny as even some NOTECARDS had no permissions on them in large stores... lmao.

This is done for a very good reason, and I think that anyone with a sense of self-protection must know never to pass out a moddable/transferable notecard. Anyone can replace the text with anything, and pass it off as the words of the card creator. Imagine what damage that can do to an innocent person. It's almost as bad as allowing full perms prims with your name on it to be out there, waiting to come and bite you on the bum one day.

Many people would welcome that

How about full perm scripts? ^^

only nibbles, maybe

Oh I don't know. Not hard bites, but real bites - or maybe that's what you mean by nibbles

And I never unstood why sellers don't put 2 copies in. One marked use and one marked copy/backup or something to that effect.

Some of us do.

Not much, since it's quite easy to explain that anyone can change a mod notecard.

Yup, I'm still waiting for the damage.

Now, making something *intended* for others to build with and leaving it full perms can bite you, because people make substandard or broken products with it, you appear as the creator, and get service calls. I bit myself on that one, and now MLPV2 comes in a no-xfer box, with the contents full perms. Widely distributed and zero problems due to malice, so far. (Knocks on wood and hopes the fools aren't reading this thread.)

Still, I'm confident that this particular fear, though valid, is overblown, and causes far more grief to customers than problems it would cause creators.

Still, it's the creator's choice. And the customers: I generally won't buy your no-mod stuff, thanks.

I sincerely hope you had your tongue planted quite firmly in your cheek when you said this.

If you didn't, then here's why Linden Lab insists upon sending the data needed to render them to your graphics card:

If they don't, you will never see them.

I would guess it's more a question of preposition: for "...to your graphics card" read "... *on* your graphics card." The alternative would be streamed video to HDCP-compliant monitors, rendered on magical servers and pumped through even fatter internet pipes than LL already rents.

Even if it were technically and economically feasible, those of us with cable-company ISPs might be a little nervous about that arrangement, in these days of deep packet inspection and McCain's diabolically named "Internet Freedom Act."

I'm confident that it was.

Yes, of course I was joking, but that bit was a gentle shot at the idea that LL has any choice in the matter of exposing that data to client computers in a way that makes it easy to rip, regardless of whether the viewer source is open, or whether encryption is used