Can a content creator restrict...

Oh please *rolleyes* you are not going to convince me that having this kind of licensing in-world is a good and right thing, nor is bringing lawyers in world either or needing to consult them over every little decision.
If SL and virtual worlds slide more toward this crap, yes crap, then people will just move to doing something that does not require a PHD in lawyer speak to understand what rights if any they have purchased.

Why the heck do you think this kind of thing for tangible goods in RL does not happen? You don't need to agree to a EULA for a hammer or for a microwave oven.
Why are there so many problems with people who are new to computers with violations of software licenses?
It is precisely because it is total crap unable to be understood by most mere mortals to a reasonable degree.

I sell all my prefabs as copyable, and I don't much care if they rez a thousand copies. Then again, it's no-transfer, so it'll their thousand copies and theirs alone.

Don't place more than one copy out at any one time is hardly lawyer speak. This isn't new, software has placed restrictions like this for years. People understand it just fine, they just don't want to agree to it because hey, they can copy stuff and they can load it on their mates computer and who the heck is going to find out?

Oh but you do have agreements like this for tangible goods. Warranties galore have terms and conditions that if you ignore make your warranty null and void. Computers often come with warranty seals, remove them, invalidate your warranty.
There will be terms about taking care of your purchase, including items like Microwaves. Drop your laptop and smash the screen and you're highly unlikely to be able to get it fixed under warranty. People understand this perfectly fine.

I sell all my prefabs as copyable, and I don't much care if they rez a thousand copies. Then again, it's no-transfer, so it'll their thousand copies and theirs alone.

Then again, I'm a fan of voting with one's wallet. The creator can add any stupid condition they want to their product, as long as the buyer is told before they buy it. If they know the stupid conditions, and still want to pay for it, then they've agreed to stupid condition. If they don't like stupid condition, they should take their money to a creator more deserving of their money.


- Newfie

Firstly obviously not if the OP could not see such terms before purchasing.

Secondly EULAs in RL are inpenetrable lawyer speak, the EULAs for textures are very much heading that way. Nothing to suggest other EULAs wont either and I was talking about the logical conclusion.

Yes they do understand it or rather they don't care mostly and ignore it. However a warranty it is not the same as a EULA and with a warranty you are not prevented from doing anything you wish to that item legally. You only lose your warranty, not the same thing at all.

Good for you, I'll bet it has never hurt your business either.

A lot of content creators are so very anal about this whole perceived "loss of revenue" thing. If a customer was never going to give them the money for another copy anyway then they have lost exactly L$0 if that person can copy it for whatever reason.

The one in this discussion seems perfectly clear to me, and I'm sure there won't be many people who can't understand it. EULA's get into to stupid lawyer speak because people look for ways to get around them instead of just respecting the wishes of the creator, but it doesn't matter how silly the EULA is, if it's clear before purchase it should be abided by.

It doesn't really matter if a warranty is the same as a EULA, it's about respecting terms and conditions. I don't really see why this should be any great difficulty to anyone here, especially as a lot of people here are content creators who know that the permissions system here is far from perfect. This means agreements like the one being discussed here should be respected, the customer however should be fully aware of this before purchase, that's the important part.

Except that if that person is copying your prefab to fill out 100 rental parcels, then every one of his tenants now ALSO has no reason to buy one of your prefabs - because they can use the copied one that the landlord provided! As Isablan pointed out, a small percentage of those renters may at some point become land owners themselves, and decide they want exactly the same prefab that they had from the landlord, and *maybe* will come to the original creator and buy one for themselves. But I would think that far more of them will never think of becoming your customers, because they had to make no effort to obtain rental housing in what appears to be something freely copyable, and therefore of little value.

I have one last bit to say for those who so staunchly defend your "right" to make as many in-world copies of an SL product as you please, if it is technically possible for you to do so:

Would you apply the same arguments to the software license for Microsoft software? Or Adobe? Or any other software manufacturer who says that you can only install one legal copy of their product per licensed copy that you pay for? Do you feel just as free to disregard their terms of use licenses? Why? Or why not? What makes it different, other than the fact that those big Corporations have well-paid lawyers that will happily take you to court over breach of their terms of use agreement, and a track record of winning huge settlements in court from people who willfully ignore those terms of use? Is it just that you figure the small-scale content creators in SL won't bother suing you? Or do you feel equally entitled to make as many copies of any software application as you can, just because you can?

I am quite certain that those who feel that "I CAN do it so it's OK for me to do it" justifies their actions are unlikely to ever change their opinion. But I would still like to hear why you think it is any different to ignore the terms of use that an SL content creator specifies.

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.

This isn't new, software has placed restrictions like this for years.

Sorry you must live in a different world to me because in my world there is clear documented evidence that EULAs are mostly ignored by the general buying public, even for software.

It certainly does matter if they are the same or not. EULAs restrict you legally from doing something and it not optional. Warranty restrictions are only mandatory if you want the warranty. Not every one cares. When I buy a replacement $20 Jug kettle (ie. cheap in my country) I don't give a rats bottom about the warranty because I have no intention of chasing a replacement, I will just buy another when it breaks down. Meantime if i want to use it to boil milk then nothing legally stops me.
Nothing about a warranty restrictions needs to be respected at all if you do not want the warrant protection. It is optional.

This. Many of my past tenants absolutely loved the skyboxes I used.When they moved out and bought their own land they asked me where to get one. I happily gave them the landmark.

If the perms says it OK to copy it then it is OK - end of story for me. Your scenarios don't convince me at all. Those renters are not going to go buy a prefab - so what? Why would they? They are renting land with a prefab on it - a prefab that does not belong to them, they are getting a restricted use of it. They are not getting a free copy of the house for themselves.

Not saying I am legally correct in my standpoint at all but it will be a cold day in hell before I either buy something with additional restrictions over the perms that are not technically enforced or abide by such restrictions once I buy something like that unbeknownst to me until after I buy.

Yeah and speed limits are often ignored where I live, but that doesn't make it right to break the speed limit. I'm not sure at all what point you're trying to make here.

It has no bearing on this discussion whether it's a warranty or a EULA. You're going off on some odd tangent here. It's about respecting terms and conditions. If people want to say they're silly then fine, if people want to say they won't purchase due to them then fine, but if people are saying they'll see them and completely ignore them, then that's not fine.

I have one last bit to say for those who so staunchly defend your "right" to make as many in-world copies of an SL product as you please, if it is technically possible for you to do so:

Would you apply the same arguments to the software license for Microsoft software? Or Adobe? Or any other software manufacturer who says that you can only install one legal copy of their product per licensed copy that you pay for? Do you feel just as free to disregard their terms of use licenses? Why? Or why not? What makes it different, other than the fact that those big Corporations have well-paid lawyers that will happily take you to court over breach of their terms of use agreement, and a track record of winning huge settlements in court from people who willfully ignore those terms of use? Is it just that you figure the small-scale content creators in SL won't bother suing you? Or do you feel equally entitled to make as many copies of any software application as you can, just because you can?

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?

This is not the same.

Software comes with copy protection, codes, etc, and yet with the code you can make multiple installs. But..."with the code", because the software is "COPY PROTECTED". They set their perms "no copy" and are adding another layer to that copy protection with serial #'s. LL gives us the means to protect our IP when we sell it: Copy / No Copy / Transfer / No Transfer / Modify / No Modify - it is through these settings that we tell the "end user" what they can do with the item we give/sell them. Adding a secondary or even tertiary level (i just wanted to use the word tertiary ) level by calling it a License does not float - the content creator still owns the IP, and I have no right to sell it - as the No Transfer status indicates, but my right as a resident and end user and the rights LL gives me with object permissions allows me to copy it if the permission is set, and it is.

If our digital items were to be on the same plane of existence as software then perhaps LL would have devised a permission system that was more dynamic and pro content creator that gave the ability to limit the number of copies of an item you want in the world, or that you want one 'end user' to be able to have from the purchase....

oh snap, they did, its called COPY/NO COPY.

So if someone was to buy your voting systems, and rent them out to club owners at 1l per year, you would have no problem with that at all?

Laws are revoked when they become unenforceable. Just sayin'

It was your tangent, of course it has bearing and no, you don't have to respect terms and conditions of things that only optionally bind you.

Except that if that person is copying your prefab to fill out 100 rental parcels, then every one of his tenants now ALSO has no reason to buy one of your prefabs - because they can use the copied one that the landlord provided! As Isablan pointed out, a small percentage of those renters may at some point become land owners themselves, and decide they want exactly the same prefab that they had from the landlord, and *maybe* will come to the original creator and buy one for themselves. But I would think that far more of them will never think of becoming your customers, because they had to make no effort to obtain rental housing in what appears to be something freely copyable, and therefore of little value.

Revoking EULA's and speed limits doesn't seem anywhere on the horizon from where I'm sitting.

No I was giving an example of terms and conditions of tangible goods, that you said didn't exist.

No you're correct, you don't have to respect terms and conditions of things that optionally bind you, it's just good manners and shows respect.

Sorry its late, so I wont read all the answers, but yes you can restrict. I own several objects (from the same maker) where i need a licence to rezz. Since I havent cleared with him, I wont post his name here, but you could always IM me ...

Laws are revoked when they become unenforceable. Just sayin'

Not necessarily. There are a lot of old, obsolete, and downright ridiculous laws still on the books. For example:

In the State of New York, it is still illegal to eat in a restaurant that is on fire.

In the State of Florida, it is illegal to have sexual relations with a porcupine.

In Wisconsin, whenever two trains meet at an intersection of said tracks, neither shall proceed until the other has.

In Alabama, it is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile.

On the subject of the unenforceable:

In Arkansas, the Arkansas River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little Rock.

In California, it is illegal for animals to mate publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

In Idaho, it is illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds.

In the State of Maine, shotguns are still required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.

In Massachusetts, it is illegal to go to bed without first having a full bath.

...and so on.

Laws are revoked when they become unenforceable.