Can a content creator restrict...

Interesting question.

You buy a build. The build is copiable. But the creator says the "license" allows you to rez only one copy in world at a time.

Can a content creator restrict how many copies of their item you rez in world when the item you purchased is copiable?

Now, i understand this could be forced upon someone through scripting and external sever use and all that, but is such a "license" enforceable or even fair?

Isn't such control lost when you sell the item as copiable?

What are your thoughts?

whats the penalty for rezzing too many? Death by stoning?

Copiable is copiable... go forth and multiply... and even if it was script controlled, I dont think it would be popular.

This permission should be called .. backupable.

I think that's fair. I have had many software packages that I can install on multiple machines but the licence only allows one install.

Whether it's enforceable is another matter, they should in all reality inform you of this before the purchase is finalised or offer you a refund if you're not happy with the terms, but I don't have a problem with a content creator stipulating such terms.

What sort of item? If it's a small thing like a chair, they should just sell it no-copy, if they want you to buy each in-world copy that you can rez.

But what about a house? Is it fair to assume that if a person buys one copy of a prefab house, they somehow have a right to rez 1000 of them for use as rentals? I would have to say no, and so would most sellers of pre-made houses, who will tell you that you are only buying the right to rez one copy of that house at a time.

In the case of a prefab house, making it copyable and no transfer means you can easily replace the house if you mess it up. And that is something most house owners would want to be able to do. But would you even buy a house that was no-copy? Probably not, since if you made any changes or accidentally deleted it, you'd have to buy a whole new house to replace it.

If you don't like the conditions a seller places on their merchandise, buy it from someone else. Or make your own. But don't buy it and then assume you can ignore the terms of sale that you agreed to by purchasing it.

Its a sweeeeeet prefab.

LOL!

Just because the permissions system doesn't enforce something, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't follow the license.

For example, all the people distributing modified versions of Franimation Overrider no-mod are violating the GPL. And everyone who isn't a member of Kazenojiin who's using an X-flight-derived script is violating Mr Goodliffe's license. And I don't think anyone here is in favor of buying full-perm building supplies like animations and reselling them raw.

On the other hand, all these licenses are redistribution licenses. They don't restrict how you can use the product if you're not redistributing it. And there's some question as to whether a license that restricts how many copies of a product you can have in your possession at a time... for any number of copies greater than zero... is enforceable.

On the gripping hand, why aren't they distributing it no-copy if they only want you to have one copy of it? The whole implied license in the no-copy vs no-trans permissions is a good thing.

I don't know. Not enough info.

Yea but see, everyone is in that boat.

Furniture makers, Sculpture makers, etc..

If i make our furniture copiable, then some real estate person could buy just a single set and furnish all their properties on multiple sims. Cest la vie, right?

Should furniture makers stipulate a license saying their furniture is not for commercial purposes and no more than 1 copy per set is allowed to be rezzed?

Ceera that argument can be used to justify such a license with any builder of content from any field in SL.

Good point. I was thinking more of the case of licenses that tried to restrict backup copies.

So... If the maker of that prefab told you, "It's No-copy", and enforced that with permissions and tricky scripts, and that meant you're screwed if it gets lost or damagd by LL's lovely, stable inventory system, would you have bought that prefab? Probably not.

But that is the choice a content creator faces.

They can be nice to the buyer, and give the buyer a way to replace damagd copies, while using a terms of use agreement to restrict how many copies the end-user can rez in-world. And someone who uses your line of reasoning could rez as many as they can mouse-click for...

Or they can lock it down so the user is screwed, but they are safe. And get virtually no sales.

What would you do?

Microsoft doesn't trap their software to prevent you from buying one copy of MS Office and installing it on every PC at the Corporation that you work for. But their terms of use license clearly states that you are buying a single instance of the software, and not the right to make unlimited copies for the whole company. And if they catch a company installing one copy on hundreds of PC's, you better believe they will have that company in Court, and will win.

Agreed. Vote with your pocketbook if you don't like the seller's restrictions. If you feel strongly enough, IM/notecard him or her and say "Love your item, but I won't buy it unless I can make copies". There is nothing wrong with customer (or would be customer) feedback.

That's the way it goes. I have a bunch of customers using my skyboxes for rentals. I've also had a number of customers come and buy one of my houses after having rented one somewhere because they liked it so much. So, I choose to not worry about the multiple copies issue and be thankful that it provides me extra exposure and sales.

IMHO, your prefab creator is a jerk.

Well, I did that licence on a couple of my builds thinking people wouldn't put too many up.
No one has ever asked about it in over a year, so no one is doing that or no one read it or no one cares. I think the latter.
I don't think I'm a jerk but a hell of a lot do I guess.

This is probably a contentious thing to say but if I bought such a prefab (presumably not knowing the terms beforehand or I would not be buying it) and it had such restrictions yet were copy enabled, then I would personally disregard it and use it as I see fit.
They could take me to court if they want to, though I doubt that would be practical to do so nor guaranteed they would necessarily win.

What is next? hidden licenses that revoke your grant to use after a period of time? Or that you can only use it in conjunction with furniture purchased from the same person? Ridiculous.

I've never read such a license, I had no idea you were only allowed to rez one at any given time. How could you stop it? I have seen many rental sims with numerous copies of the same house.

Some have them, most don't. Some have signs up saying that their items (not necessarily houses only either, boats sometimes too) should be rezzed one at a time only.
I don't buy from anywhere stating such things on a copy enabled item.
The only way it can be enforced is if someone tells the creator (there are such people) or the creator goes to check (some do I guess). Even then, if you say no to their request to remove, then there is nothing they can do to enforce it except possibly by using legal means or unless the item has a back door script in it that allows them to make the object self delete. That would be a new level of low though.

Maybe he has some script in the house that reports to him on rez with the owner's name and a prim key. If he sees lots of keys coming from the same avatar, he may suspect you of breaking the terms.

But what's he going to do - AR you for making copies of a copyable object? Why didn't he simply make the object no-copy, then?

Hmmm had not thought of the script to report people. Definitely an insidious and yet possible option.
I agree, AR'ing will get him precisely nowhere. A DMCA will not even help as no copyright has been broken, just a private license. Only suing someone would have any effect unless as I said he has the means to make the houses go poof themselves. That would be a quick way to destroy your reputation I would think. I would not buy anything knowing that the creator could delete on a whim - say like an argument or by accident.

I wouldn't buy anything that had such stupid terms of use, either. In any case, it certainly reflects why LL won't get involved in inter-resident disputes; can you imagine being the poor sot who has to clear this mess up?

Actually, one of the points of the DMCA is to get legal recognition of these kinds of licenses-of-adhesion (EULAs). SO you can technically DMCA someone over a EULA like this.

Especially as consumer rights protections have not been defined for the grid by LL. A Linden would have to decide whther the creators right to restrict use of their work trumped your rights to use it in a reasonable fashion or not.

OK, I could be wrong about that but I was under the impression it dealt with and covered only distribution of copyrighted works and not use of them. Even so, worst that is going to happen? The content you bought is deleted and you are out your money. Big deal. You could always fight it too - if you didn't get chance to see the EULA then it may be deemed unenforceable. It would not be worth the money and time to fight it though. Consider the vendor a scammer and buy from someplace you can trust I would say.

I guess it really depends on the intent of the creator. Obviously the creator could have made it mod/transfer instead of copy/transfer but what if the owner screws it up? The creator may have also had inventory failures in mind and did not want someone to loose the item. In cases like this I would read the license as more of a plea to not abuse the copy permission.

Is this really correct? Some one can issue a DMCA against a place for breaking the terms of a EULA? What would it do? Stop them from using the item? How would that get enforced? Would you have to hand over your disks? Computer?

Is there any place in any SL documentation to say what you can expect as a right from the ability to copy via perms?