Why no transfer?

someone please explain why so many designers set their products to no transfer. It makes no sence to me, why do they care if the person who pays for it sells it at a yard sale or give it to their friend when they are done with it? Are they afraid ppl will swap clothes to much and not buy more? Do they not want their stuff at yard sales? I have soooo many hair and shoes (hehe shop-a-holic) that are no transfer that i'm tired of and will never use, I would just pass them on to a friend/newbie or sell them to buy more but no, i'm stuck wtih all this clutter!

From waht I've seen, most No Transfer items are usually Copy OK. I prefer this, since I may have multiple AVs or outfits etc. and I can make copies for each folder. Additionally, this lets me make backups if I modify the item. Because it is Copy OK, they'll set No Transfer so that someone can't buy it and just start reselling it.

There have been a couple times that I've wanted to give someone something that I bought, but couldn't. But to me, that's a minor annoyance compared to a No Copy or No Modify item.

I think that there is something buggy with the system. I have set several of my items to transfer, yet ppl are not able to transfer them. I have even TP'd to their location and checked the item myself and saw that it was No Transfer, yet another customer has the same item which is Transfer.

I do not know how this happens, but it's very annoying, yes. Especially for the customer who buys it because it says that it is Transferable.

there are many people that resell items at higher prices than the original seller. since there isn't a "no resale" option, the original seller's only weapon against these practices is to set items to "no transfer".

Make sure that everything inside the object is also transferable.

Permissions appear to be only propagated when an object is rezzed, not if you change them on the Properties panel.

An item I made that was modify-ok is listed as modify-ok when in its box, then becomes listed as no-modify when taken out (because it contains a no-modify script) but is in fact still modify-ok (because the prims are still modify-ok)

Is it Tuesday?

In my case, as a vehicle builder, the reason of having it set to Copy/No trans is because there's a possibility of losing the vehicle to crashing/lag/Sim borders etc. When that happens, you don't want to have to buy a new copy just for the sake of being able to resell it at a yard sale.

However, this is an excellent opportunity for renewed discussion on the permissions system. It would make much more sense if you, as the owner, could REZ multiple copies but not take multiple into inventory and still be able to give the object away. (having the "base object" disappear from inventory of course). Just an example of what could be improved permissions-wise.

No, it's Thursday.

Here are quite a few (easily searchable) threads on this very subject:

/108/e9/91163/1.html
/108/b5/78652/1.html
/108/70/75878/1.html

I'm very pro "no-transfer"; in fact, I have something new to add to the conversation topic. I'm working on some functionality which will allow the person who took delivery of a no-transfer item through SLB to "re-transfer" it at any time. This would serve three major purposes:

(1) Me not getting bugged with "the item disappeared or wasn't delivered" requests.
(2) Other sellers not getting bugged about the same.
(3) A backup copy of that which you've purchased easily accessible at any time, should your inventory go poof / accidental deletion / force majeure.

Regards,

-Flip

Melyissa, there are only a couple of options for sellers. All items have to be either transferrable, copyable, or both. Choosing both is business suicide, since if an item is transferrable AND copyable, it can be distributed for free by anyone and everyone forever. Therefore, the only viable choices are to make an item transferrable OR copyable.

Most consumers prefer to have the items they buy be copyable. For example, if you buy a shirt, you may want to use it with a number of different outfits. If it's not copyable, you have to create each outfit from scratch every time. Obviously, that's time consuming, and annoying. However, if it IS copyable, all you have to do is make a folder for each outfit and put a copy of the shirt in each folder. Changing outfits from then on is instantaneous.

Another good example would be the one Doeko mentioned. If we're talking prim-based objects (vehicles, houses, attachments, etc), they're really easy to lose. Without the ability to copy, you're screwed.

So, as much as we sellers would all like to make transferrable items that people can give as gifts, the drawbacks of doing that are just not worth it. Without the ability to copy, most consumers won't be happy with the product.

Just so you know, third party sales sites like SL Boutique do grant the ability to buy items for other people. If you want to give gifts, that's often the easiest way to do it. In theory, inworld vending machines could do the same thing, but I've never seen one with that option, and I'm certainly not skilled enough at scripting to make one.

I do get requests from customers all the time though for gift giving, and my answer is always that the purchaser should pay me and I'll send the item to the recipient myself. No one's ever had a problem with that.

I set my things no transfer so that I can set them copy. As a consumer, I personally prefer being able to make multiple copies of something (so that I can drop it into different folders, and so that I can modify it -- if applicable -- and still have an original version), so that's what I use as the default permissions for my products.

Easy:

I refuse to sell no modify, it is way too boring if we all look the same, and if you can't resize your stuff. So reason one: Modify + Transfer? No way, that's like saying, hey sure, make it what you want and then resell it under your name, O.o eek.

I refuse to sell no copy, because I think I am not the only one who HAAAAAAAAAAAATES when you save an outfit, and the item goes pop, from a folder to another, blah! And also because if it is modifiable, you might want to keep your original copy in case of a booboo.
So reason two: Copy + Transfer? Yeah, as if you won't give 21937832 copies to your friends, and all I have left to do is close my store hehe.

Well I am being a bit drastic here, just for the fun of it, but basically these are the reasons.
But believe me, I WISH wish wiiish there was a way to avoid this and let people resell.
I keep thinking if I had to leave SL, how ruined I would be, all the $ I spent, voided.
But that SL, eh!

Plus, I believe if you ask nicely, most of the desginers, including myself, will gladly modify the perms they set for your convenience, except a few.

Voila!

I prefer No Transfer to No Copy, so that's what I sell with as well.

If I have something I don't want anymore, I delete it. No sense clogging up my inventory just because I can't get $0.02 back on something I've probably gotten my money's worth on already.

Since I offer free upgrades on my software, it makes customer service much easier.

When people have copies of objects, they are less likely to delete all of them, if it breaks they have backups, if they claim they didn't get a purchase I can just check my sales history and give a new copy, etc.

But for non-scripted stuff, I generally sell no-copy / trans just because it's not a big deal.

That would be such a cool feature, I'd kick my own grandmother in the teeth for it.

Or maybe your grandmother.

I'm still in favor of breaking the "put references to any item in multiple locations in inventory" aspect out of the copy permission and making it an inherent right. Indeed, I should go write a proposal on that.

Symlinks

in our inventory! Yay! approved

Symlink = symbolic link, basically the same thing you described for files on Unix.

Pretty much, yes.

Discussion thread here (voting proposal to follow; I wanted to see if there were any details yet to work out).

Most of my verbiage is for people who wouldn't be familiar with the concept already, and sorting out up front what the implications are.