Evil Markup Badness

Yes, it's happened again. There was a thread about this a week or so ago. People selling other peoples free or cheap creations at huge markups.

This time, it's in the Slate Open Market!

I got an IM from a friend who happened to be there that an item I was well, giving away at the Gnu Wave Architects store was being sold for $50. My friend went on to say that other peoples goods are being sold there too.

*note, this is just one stall, so it's not Linkin and Lensey's fault*

Anyway... most people will already know, but for newbies... think twice before you buy something from someone who's not the creator. You might get it cheaper by going to the source.

Also, in an effort to protect the creators' rights, yet another passer buy has obscured the stall...

No names mentioned, it's *possible* (yeah right) this person doesn't understand why doing this was wrong.

But Sio, you must have missed the point... the residents of Second Life call this free enterprise. They damned well have a RIGHT to sell on your goods at whatever price they damned well please. Didn't you get that yet?

That's the last thing I expected you to say kris

Kris, they can sell stuff they got from me for anything they like, fine... if that's free enterprise, then I have the right to say that folks can get it cheaper from me... lol

just for the record, the market is in sage, which is looking beautiful btw.

i've seen plants that i give away for sale a couple of times. i've imd the person and explained that they're available for free in slate and they've taken them down.

i don't know what i'd do if they didn't. i suppose they can try to sell them if they like. i might go so far as to tell them that people who buy them, then see them copyable all over the world, might neg rate them and i would hate to see that happen. really.

I was being heavily sarcastic Eggy (and evidently too subtle about it).

Primarily on account that I was once foolish enough to suggest that I ought to be able to exercise some right and control over the products I created. Of course I was shouted down by all the people, like your good self, who believe that the rights should pass over to the buyer to do with as they please, including marking it up to whatever price they like and selling it on.

For the record: I don't agree. My product. My terms. My rights. Don't like it. don't buy it. Although apparently I am wrong in this assertion too.

But don't worry, cuz as I said to you last time we spoke, my answer is simple; Since I'm not given the necessary tools to force people to abide by my sale terms, and since I evidently can't trust people to respect my wishes, I simply will not make any more products for free or for sale.

As a result, I've canned all my future projects, of which there were many I think the residents of Second Life would have liked as much as they apparently like the Dance-O-Matic. Several were about ready for retail. And now they'll never see the light of day. But no matter - they were still fun to make.

Oops, sorry, my bad... lol, I was there at the time too



The way I see it is that it should work like the real world. Sell it on if you have no more use for it, or give it away. Even mark it up if you think you can get away with it... but there has to be protection for the creator and for the new buyer...

Perhaps as well as a selling price there should be an originally-sold-for price so the customer can see if it's been marked up, and on the other end, there obviously need to be better permissions. Maybe break give-away and sell into seperate options. Allow a buyer to make-copies (and perhaps give copies away), or transfer, but not both...

But there are entire threads dedicated to that, so I won't go on...

Instead, because this is a rant thread in a rant forum, I'll just say this...

"You all suck! Yes, especially you, and you, and y... oh, that's me... well maybe me too ... Pfft!"

Sio

Yes, but you're not allowed to make your point there. The 'other side', after sneering and ridiculing, told us that it would be crass to keep arguing our point, since they'd made theirs, they were right, we were wrong, and there was no value in going over it again.

Oh wait. That's every 'discussion' in these forums. n/m.

kris you should know that only dripping sarcasm will work here rofl

I have also wished that the resell/give away check box would be separate. They are two different actions, why join them together.

In that case, my bookself was not made by Elizah or something. It was made by me. I just used his free oak doors to make the stained glass doors on the bottom and now the whole thing has his name on it of I want my doors to open.

Because if only one was checked. Give me the money and I will give you the item.

Kris,

I really think it is a shame that you have decided to stop making items for sale - you are one of the most talented developers in SL. I hope at some point you will reconsider. I agree with your point of view 150% and it makes me angry that the lame actions of some greedy idiots has caused you to react like this.

Cristiano

Aww. Thanks for your kind words Cris

>>Cue self serving rantette:

Well, from my point of view, I don't understand why people were so against the ideas for better sales/gifting permissions when suggested in the features suggestions forum. It wouldn't effect them one little bit unless it was their intention to try and go against the wishes of the creator (or license agreement, if you like). My view is essentially the same as Urusula's. Why can't I say 'yes, you can give it away, no you can't sell it'. What's so wrong with having that ability?

But I've seen the reaction; a good proportion of the respondants disagreed so vehemently with my views and said as much as they would do exactly as they pleased as the owner, that I don't see that I want to sell to these kind of consumers. And that essentially means not selling to anyone because I can't discriminate (hmm. one to one screening process and interview before you can buy a product, anyone?).

So the Dance-O-Matic was my first and last commercial product. I shall let sales run to their natural conclusion, and then that's it from me. Until I get the ability to enforce my rights on people that dont think I have any

end self serving rantette<<

You know what's funny? I've given away absolutely tons of free stuff in SL in the time I've been here. And of found people selling it. But never once have I found a newbie selling it. It's always been people who've been here long enough to know better.

Last time I caught someone selling my stuff, it was someone who is known to be talented. That was the worst part about it. It wasn't that the person couldn't make anything to sell. It was pure damned greed.

At that point, I just gave up. I give stuff away for free just because I feel good doing it. If someone exploits that, and in turn exploits others, it's their problem. Not going to make it mine.

Candie

Kasandra, you are right in saying that people would just sell it anyway. There are always going to be those that bend the rules to suit them. I guess for me it would just be nice to have it happen under the table rather than right in front of me. It just really irritates me when someone is selling the item you created (which they bought then by editing and taking they got another copy of ) in the booth beside the one you are trying to sell it from. (Or at the Open Air Swapmeet right beside the area where you are selling your stuff.)

I guess it's really no different than having a yard sale, and maybe we should all just be glad that someone likes our stuff enough to buy it no matter who they buy it from. But, I guess to me it is like buying a CD and making a copy then selling the copy in the store right beside the original. The only difference would be who got the money. The artist who created the CD or the person who owns a CD Burner.

Maybe a good way to get around this would be that for every resell the creater gets a percentage of the sale. Is there a way to write a script to accomplish this?

As I've said before, the thing that irks me when you go to the trouble to make something, and make it free for all to have/use turned around and marked up for 500 bucks.

Especially when the only change to it is that modify/copy is turned off -- I've yet to see how this is 'increasing the value'.

What I don't mind at all is someone taking one of these items, changing/learning/improving and then doing as they like with it.

Eventually what you're going to see is people no longer making thing to pass around, and to be honest I wouldn't blame them...

So if you see that big ole hottub that was featured at the last town hall meeting, remember you can get it for free in Davenport -- don't go getting yourself ripped off.
(oh and Lay-Z-Boy chairs and lots of other stuff too).

Siggy.

Guess I should browse feature suggestions more often. I'd have been agreeing with you all the way. The permissions we have now are a big step up from what we had before (none) but they're buggy and they don't have enough options or don't cover enough potential combinations of needs. I'd like to see things like being able to have no-transfer items that allow the next owner to transfer it back to the creator if needed. Setting permissions is always a bit of a hobson's choice. We definitely need more options. I've been lucky and not had problems (that I know of) aside from a couple of items I accidentaly let go out copy and transfer enabled... which not suprisingly ended up being copied and transfered a lot

As for your philosophical viewpoint I couldn't agree more. Open source minded people have every right to be altruistic if they so choose, but when they start insisting that everyone else should be obliged to be the same way or that they somehow have a right to something simply by virtue of wanting it... well, then I start getting seriously annoyed. Although, the arguments they try to use to justify their desire to steal can be rather amusing.

Selling stuff other folks made without theiw permission is morally theft even if it isn't legally theft. Period.

Actually, I didn't read this whole thread, but I have to add something as well. I bought a shirt at a recent "open bazaar" event, which I am currently wearing, which I purchased for something cheap like 40L, but I just found out today that my roommate is wearing the same shirt with his AV. And I'm damn sure he hasn't purchased anything in this game, at least not in the last few months--he rarely logs in. I'm pretty sure this shirt I now have on was stolen and I'm gonna find out who it is and raise a fuss.

I think what it boils down to is taking advantage of the kindness of the creators and their original intent and then flushing it down the toilet under the guise of greed.

If a item was meant to be sold for money don't you think it would be sold thus by the original creator? They're passing it out to be kind and spread some love to those who can't afford or go around paying whatever for the item/script/etc

If folks want to continue having free stuff passed around, then the selling of those free items should be fixed/checked/whatever to make it so folks who do take free don't turn around and say 'hey look what I made. $50L pls k thx'.

It's this very mentality that keeps me and others from giving things or setting things out for free. Because there will be those who will exploit that kindness for their own selfishness.

Why Sio continues baffles me but the only way I can say to really deal with the reselling of free things you've created is to contact the seller and kindly ask them to stop. If they don't, well, there's always ratings or something to throw on them for refusing to heed such a request. While this is option, its not something I'm fond of, even in such a case. Word of mouth seems best.

Lastly, if its on someone elses land? IM the land owner and have them remove it for you, or do what I do, cover the entire item in question with a prim, put word of it being free at said location/person and see if that doesnt get their attention. : P

Edit: Ewww.. I haven't woke up. My English is a teachers nightmare right now.. *fixfix*

I think Siggy had it right.

I like to give stuff away too. The item in question was never sold (by me) for anything more than L$0, though there are similar items for sale at low cost.

It gets me when someting I was feeling altruistic about is now being sold for not just more than it was priced at, but a lot more than it's worth!

Anyway, a message to buyers. You want anything that I made, then chances are, you'll get it cheaper from me than from anyone else. And as Siggy said, probably with more open permissions too... Unless I set them wrong.

Why don't those that give away or sell stuff for $1 like Siggy, make them non transferable? This will save a lot of fuss

I for one, I can't speak for Sigs, know that this side (meaning myself and Jai) of The GNU Group in particular would like to make it so everyone could copy, and modify and regive their items they've purchased to other's. So we don't want to have to make it so people can't fiddle with them.

It stinks when you see someone take something you worked hard on to try and help newer players and jack the price up, and charge those same new players a higher amount of something they got for free or a $1L.

They can do it, yes. But it doesn't mean it's right.
The problem is that someone is always trying to take the easy way out, and instead of coming up with a great idea of their own to make themselves richer, they abuse a kind system for gain.

It's unfortunate, but true.

Crow

If someone is selling copies of your item, without your permission, that's copyright infringement and you could concievably take them to court over it. (Not that I am necissarily suggesting that be the first action you take.) It could also quite possibly fall under the broad "abuse" banner? I'm not sure.

If someone is reselling without copying, that's right of first sale and there's not a damn thing you could (or should) do other than get pissy about it.

I think that's about all there is to it. Making things Copy/Transfer is basically putting them out there in the public domain as things stand now. You could attach some form of license to it, but that has to my knowledge never been tested in SL.