It's worse then I thought

Being"willing to pay for it" and ripped off are 2 compeltely different things. You're telling me you wouldn't be a little pissed of if you found out the DVD you paid 20 bucks for was being handed out freely 4 blocks down the street?

Buyer beware is one thing, taking advantage of people's newbieness is another.



And stop reading/posting in the forums. Srsly. You could be having sex right now.

Ethics aside....

Reselling freebies is only viable as long as we have a strong "tourist economy".

If the growth and turnover rates in SecondLife slow down, you can expect those
that profit from this line of ... ?work? ... to refine their business models or give up.

But... as long as starry eyed newbies continue to flock in (and flock out after
their attention span or tolerance for being sold crap fades), there's probably not
much that can be done stop the practice.

Now... if repeat customers were a priority, things would be different.

"Son, when I was your age, I went around SL, picking up all these freebies that were meant to be given out without any charge, stuck them in boxes, then charged people who didn't know they were freebies some ridiculously high prices for them...
In the process, I drove away many people and gave SL a bad name.

And you know what son? For some reason, people thought I was bad for doing it"

hehe - another freebie selling discussion.

Selling freebies is 'bad' in several ways. Allow me to outline a couple:

1. Selling an item intended to be free stomps on the intellectual property rights of the item's creator.

At least in principle, this has RW legal implications. Admittedly, it may be something difficult to prove, and possibly not worth the time of many or most creators to pursue.

2. Selling items that are commonly available elsewhere as free takes advantage of the ignorance of those new to our world.

This is a moral issue. IMHO, it is in everyone's best interest for new residents to be happy with our world, and grow to their best potential. Each new resident that is taken advantage of, and leaves our world in disgust as a result of it becomes a lost opportunity - which is bad for buisness.

#####

Folks who sell freebies may not be guilty of a TOS violation. However, its fairly well known that the creator community doesn't look kindly upon the practice. If a freebie seller is potrayed in a negative light as a result, this should come as no surprise.

Possibly it would be prudent buisness to weigh the financial gain in selling freebies vs. the public relations loss to get a true picture of whether its worthwhile or not.

I guess some of us still get outraged by people's lack of morals, ethics or honesty. I am certainly never suprised by folks doing crappy things in the name of self-interest, but I still don't believe it's right or should be accepted quietly.

You get it. Wish more did.

If the £15 DVD was stolen from the first store and then sold at the second store for £10, then yes, it is wrong.

Thieves are not capitalists.

What if the first store GAVE the second store a copy and said "you can do anything you like with this" and then the second store sold it. Is that stealing?

In some people's minds, yes.

Of course, some people also think oil companies are "stealing" people's money. Which is totally ludicrious. If people weren't willing to pay these astronomical gas prices, they'd be forced to lower them.

Its all about what the market will bear.

People are willing to pay $3.00+ per gallon, so oil companies will charge it.

Capitalism.

I don't think they are saying to do to anything you want with the freebies. There seems to be an implied community standard that the freebies are for personal use or to share with newbies to help them get started.

P.S. Nyx... it may of been me that bought that gumball. A gumball has been my first and only purchase so far. I found an outfit I want though.... so going to make my second purchase tonight.

Giving something away with full perms is an explicit way to say "Do Anything You Like With This".

Bullshit. Especially since the many perm bugs have resulted in content getting bolluxed and distributed full perms.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that it is legal or moral.

I can copy digital music files and give them away, doesn't make it legal or right.

Digital music files don't have check boxes that the creator can specify which perms to give. Hence, BS back to ya.

QED.

Translation... "I feel I can continue to rip people off..."


I ask again... How much time, effort and money have you put into improving the products to justify the hefty price tag for items that DO NOT COST ANYTHING?

Are you in fact, doing anything to justify selling free items, or are you just scamming people out of their money?

Before you answer, just remember the shit you got into on SLX for selling unaltered freebies...


See, if you bought/picked up the items, then improved upon them... you'd have a case for charging for them, and people would more than likely applaude you're efforts. But, simply picking up freebies and slapping them in a box isn't improving them at all...

I'd like to know how many of the people on this thread have mp3's on their puter that they stole from the net for free?

I wonder if anyone would admit it here, since that would make them hypocrits.

(Ane before you start flaming me, I don't sell freebies)

If they sold them.

So it's ok to steal things as long as you don't sell them? Is that what you are saying?

Oh, don't try with the "copyright breach is theft" thing... it doesn't work. Copyright breach is not theft, legally or logically.

To evaluate what it means to copy things that other people have produced one has to look at the social implications of that process, whether it encourages or discourages innovation and cultural development. The ridiculous copyright laws that exist in the West at the moment are no indication of moral worth.

Judge: Second Store, you were copying this movie and selling the copies.

Second Store: But first store gave me the DVD and permission to use it how I wanted!

Judge: You still violated copyright law.

Second Store: But there was no copyright notice on the DVD that I got from First Store!

Judge: Because they erased it before they gave it to you.

After this point it gets sticky...

but do you think First Store or Second Store are behaving legally?


Being ABLE to do something and having PERMISSION to do something are two very different things.

Theft occurs when the rightfully licensed distributors for a copyrighted work don't receive the payment/royalties they are entitled due to someone else is distributing unauthorized copies.

If I download .mp3's from the net (which I don't), that I wouldn't otherwise buy anyway, no one loses anything.

If I download .mp3's from an unathorized distributor, and I would have paid for that music normally... or if I do pay the unauthorized distributor for those .mp3's then yes.

Because it's impossible to tell whether someone would have or would not have actually paid for illicitly downloaded music... and because the violations of individuals for personal/private benefit are usually less heinous, they are largely ignored.

It is more cost effective, for enforcement to target the people actually doing the unauthorized distribution, particularly when it's on a large scale.

You completely either missed her point about the permissions bug or decided to ignore it. Whatever bullshit that is being flung is right there, smothered all over your face.

"You're telling me you wouldn't be a little pissed of if you found out the DVD you paid 20 bucks for was being handed out freely 4 blocks down the street?"

Of course I would be pissed off. I would be pissed off at myself for buying something without taking time to shop around first to see if I can find it cheaper. I would NOT be angry at the person who sold the DVD to me, as it is not his/her responsibility to ensure I am a wise consumer...it is mine.

Do you want a nanny? Is that what you want? Do you want someone to take the burden of choice away from you and the other players? YOU may not think that selling freebies is value for money, but obviously some people do. Do you want to go and tell them all that they're idiots for buying them? Do you stand in a highstreet music shop and yell at the people buying music you think is crap?

The copyright discussion here is bogus:

1: LindenLabs own the copyright for ALL content within Second Life, except for that which breaches outside copyright (Star Wars stuff, etc).
2: Even if above weren't the case, giving out something with copy/mod/trans is explicitily granting you the right to make copies of the item and distribute them freely...the very thing that copyright law PROHIBITS you from doing without permission. Therefore, giving out something with no perms is granting you the right to copy...therefore, it is granting you copyright.

The comparison to a DVD with no copyright notice on is wrong. Not displaying a copyright notice does not grant people the right to copy it. Displaying a notice that tells people they can copy it DOES.

The bottom line: you might think that selling freebies is a horrible scam, but it's not up to you to judge. It is up to the purchaser to judge. If the item is misleadingly advertised, not up to legal quality standards, etc, then it is a scam. But just being overpriced...well, footballers get paid millions of pounds to kick a ball around, and a tiny bottle of mineral water costs a quid. If you think it's a scam, don't buy it. If you DO buy it, then it's YOUR fault. Nobody forced that money out of your hand.

Musuko.

not true. This is from the Second Life web page:



IP Rights

Linden Lab’s Terms of Service agreement recognizes Residents’ right to retain full intellectual property protection for the digital content they create in Second Life, including avatar characters, clothing, scripts, textures, objects and designs. This right is enforceable and applicable both in-world and offline, both for non-profit and commercial ventures. You create it, you own it—and it’s yours to do with as you please.

but the rest was right, more or less

No ... it's not ... There is nothing implicit or explicit beyond the 3 discrete words next to those check boxes.

In fact, it only says that the permission system here needs some work. We specifically need permissions for dealing with 2nd generation owners and beyond ... if the person who acquires something directly from the creator is 1st generation.

Your interpretation is flawed, any plans or actions taken based on a flawed understanding are also flawed.

CAN vs. SHOULD again.

A copyright notice does not make it impossible to copy something, it states the terms under which copies are accepted as legitimate.

The original intent of the original author of the freebie was clearly to make something 1) FREE, 2) COPY and 3) MOD.

By using the permission to MOD something to remove the FREE aspect, you are deliberately violating the original creator's EXPLICIT copyright terms.