Second Hand Shops?

A lot of people are great at selling, not so good at building, so the idea of a store that buys excess inventory from people and resells it is a viable way for non-creators to make $L. This is legitimate and should be considered rewarding in itself.

Personally, I love it when I see yard sales/secondhand stores, because the people running them are usually the most prolific shoppers in SL and have a great selection of items from designers I might not have heard of or were unwilling to risk full price for. I can say that after buying items for L$25 or L$50, I have then gone to the original creator and bought much, much more.

I like it when I see the original price in the description of the item, and since I can see who the creator is, I can always go to their shop and verify that.

There will always be people that will sell items for more than retail, and those can be divided into people reselling no longer available collectibles (a good thing) and scum.

Well the more tired I become the more wrong answers I give. So ask the important questions early on.

No one denied it's legitimate, but making money over someone ELSE's effort is for sure not that great morally speaking. Not to mention when this damages their sales.

Aimee, with respect, I would point out that short of glitches and breakdowns in the permissions system, it was her Creator-Given right to sell whatever she pleased to whomever she pleased.

Creator, as in, the person who made the object and allowed transfer (which includes resale) permissions active, not as in an allknowing holy being.

Permission bugs which allowed people to do things other than the original set permissions are another matter entirely though.

Why not ask the creator for a (larger) wholesale price so that you can copy the goods for resale?

Some creators have no land and do not want to lease stalls, so you might find someone who likes to create but does not want to bother with selling.

Actually there is an enormous difference between using the transfer rights a content creator gave to you to make gifts or to occasionally clean your inventory and to exploit it to make your own regular business over someone else's creativity and effort, damaging his or her sales in the process.

Yes. This one fell into the glitch category. The content creators never set these items for distribution but the privs were changed due to a privs bug that happened around September. Aformentioned content creators (several) were asking her to take the items down. This person refused, neg rated them, and banned them from her land. It took an act of Philip to stop her rampage and take down her store.

Otherwise I would respectfully agree with you. If *I* set my items to transfer and/or copy... then I would never contest it if people started transfering and/or copying my stuff. This was different.

Being able to resell an item either after one is through with it, or if it doesn't meet one's expectations and can't be returned, is a standard expectation in RL transactions.

If reselling (transfer) isn't permitted, people are much less likely to take a chance on buying a product - particularly if it can't be returned. (I haven't seen a return policy in SL yet, btw, even though most RL merchants do have such a policy.)

As for the problem of providing updates, it seems reasonable that sellers might have a policy against providing updates to non-original owners. RL second-hand products usually aren't under warranty, and it is the reseller, if anyone, who warrants the product. (However, if a seller is willing to provide updates to non-original owners, they could require the dated copy be returned before handing out the new one, for example.)

Personally, when I see the no-transfer option set on an object (or I see this policy listed before buying), my response tends to be regret (or anticipated regret) about having purchased an item that I can do nothing with but delete if and when it isn't worth the space it takes up in my inventory. No-transfer also makes it impossible to give an item as a gift! What about those sales?

Sure, merchants seem to benefit in the short term by blocking redistribution, but it isn't a benefit to them if people start to become ultra-suspicious of buying anything. It is nice to be able to try things out, without every purchase being a massive gamble. Psychologically, at least, I feel better knowing I'm free to resell or give away things that I might quickly lose interest in.

Speaking of all this, what about the idea of a rental service for objects? This would allow people who only want to try out items, or use them for a limited time, to do so at a cost they would be more likely to pay.

It seems to me that content creators would be better served by focusing on increasing their market size, increasing buyer goodwill, and selling more products to more people, than on trying to squeeze every drop of money out of an apparently finite base of shoppers.

I think the idea of second-hand shops is great. Hey, why not a pawn shop?

Shiryu starts a business selling widgets. He sells them for $50L apiece, and they have transfer permissions active.

Unhygienix, the evil remarketer, buys 10 of them, and resells them in his shop for $100L each. Because he markets his shop heavily, all 10 of them sell out within 4 weeks, while in the same period Shiryu has only sold 3 in his shop, even though he only sells them for half the price and he is the original creator.

Shiryu's feelings may have been hurt

Shiryu's sense of propriety may have been injured.

Shiryu's sales have been HELPED.


Since Unhygienix is unable to maintain or upgrade these items, but Shiryu is, this business model is not likely to continue indefinitely without a formal, mutually agreed-upon arrangement.

Barbarra has an interesting idea.

This angle could also serve as a gauge for market feesibility of a product. An outlet store could offer to sell goods for a new creator or creation. If the seller comes back repeatedly requesting more stock, the creator will know they have an item people want. They can choose to continue the wholesale market or strike out on their own and sell the goods themself.

Cool ideas.

I quite like the idea of bulk buying content for cheaper and selling it on for new creators who may not have enough stock worth opening a shop for.

Unhygienix your last post seems dangerously similar to the arguments people normally bring to defend piracy.

Anyway i am talking on a moral point of view (and that is what the original thread author was asking), you are talking on a practical point of view.

Sure, if someone will lucrate over MY creativity i won't call an attorney to sue him, but i won't sure be happy about him or his actions.

A second hand shop is nothing else than a way to lucrate over someone else's creativity and effort, and while it can be acceptable in first life since in first life there are MANY practical advantages in buying a new item over an used one, in second life there is no practical difference. This means reselling items in second life as a regular trend (not as an isolated happening to clean one's inventory in a yard sale) DOES hurt a merchant's sales.

And yes, having items notransfer hurts the buyer as well as the seller, this is a practical reason why second hand stores should be discouraged, because they could eventually force merchants to set their items notransfer in order to protect their own sales.

Designers have a choice. Copy OR Transfer. We can't do both. Problem is, the demand for either is split down the middle. We have discussed solutions (puting out 2 boxes for each product with different privs settings etc) but there isn't really an ideal solution. My older stuff is all copy/no transfer, but I have changed to no-copy/yes-transfer because my items are given as gifts alot.

So there are other factors that go into setting items as "no transfer" besides

Is this really what you think of us?


Unhygienix, I totally agree with you on the value of resale. Also not mentioned here is the notion of collectable items. If, say, I decide to put out 30 limited edition outfits and set them to allow transfer...I think it would be fun to see how they are traded and change value over time. Perhaps some of these collectable outfits will become lost as users drop out of the game (and their inventory is lost). The surviving collectables will become ever more rare and in demand.

I mentioned transfer of collectibles.

SORRY! Credit where credit is due!

I don't think any of this should reach into the level of a moralistic arguement. It sounds to me (again with a great tone) that everybody is trying to discuss what system would work best for everybody.

As a content creator my opinions are obviously skewed in my own favor, but at the end of the day my opinion counts much less than the actual outcome of these policies. If Unhygienix is right, and resale INCREASE my sales, I am gonna make more clothing, and i am going to be happy to allow transfer. If Shiryu is right and resale causes a drop in sales, we are going to stop allowing transfer.

It's a big experiment really and I am open to new ideas, but having done this for a year now I think most of us designers have figured out the sweet spot when it comes to pricing, privs, and customer service.

Woohoo!

Just in case this was missed as well:

As a consumer who uses yard sales/second hand stores, sure I get bargains on items, but I also use it as a cheap way to discover and try out new creators. More often than not, I will then go to that creator and BUY MORE STUFF FROM THEM!

Most people don't resell complete sets of things, so if I get your chair for L$40 and like it, I am still going to have to pay full price from you for your couch. If I buy a black suit for L$100, and I like it, I know I will have to buy the red and blue from you for L$300 each. I do this all the time.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend with that line. And I think highly of and support content creators and merchants. My basic point is that resale of items is not a bad thing, overall for merchants. And it's something generally to be expected, with items. Of course, this doesn't apply to all items.

I see your point about copy- vs. transfer- permissions. (Generally, I would prefer to buy multiple copies of an item if I wanted multiple copies, but retain the ability to resell them or give them away.)



How is there anything morally wrong with functioning as a reseller? These merchants have the potential to perform a service to both content creators and buyers. Not all content creators have the time or inclination to heavily market their products. That is what resellers do.

Generally, I would prefer to see more complete indexes of products available, that would simplify comparison shopping. In many cases these can cut resellers out of the loop, or allow everyone to charge and pay optimal prices.

Shiryu, I'm not arguing whether it is moral or immoral to start a business model in Second Life based on the resale of other resale items. I was just pointing out a flaw in your argument.

You argued that if one person resold another's items, they would be damaging the first person's sales. Assuming that the item in question is no-copy but transfer, this is factually untrue. A resaler will never hurt, and will sometimes help the sales of the creator. Every copy of the creator's item that is bought, whether directly by a customer or indirectly by a resaler and then sold on to a customer, increases the amount of sales for the creator.

My argument is dangerously similiar to the arguments made by people who involve themselves in piracy, with the important and obvious exception that software and copyright pirates do not have the right to sell their things, or copy and distribute them, whereas in Second Life (caveat: *so long as the permissions system is functioning properly*), these second-hand store owners and resalers are using EXACTLY the permisssions that were granted to them by the items' creators. So, um, actually my argument isn't really similiar to theirs at all. Pirates are violating the law, in RL, violating copyrights, patents, trademarks. In SL, people aren't able to violate a permission that they weren't given.

A better analogy would be to say that I'm getting dangerously close to defending the types of actions taken by pawn shop owners and closeout buyers, when they resell other people's goods. It may be a way of making money off the work of others, but it's completely fed by supply and demand. It's also work-intensive, because if the store owner doesn't have full permissions on the items in question, he'll have to sell them by hand instead of using vendors.

Also, a second-hand store in SL is a great way for people to be able to make money off their unused inventory. It provides a service, and involves speculation on the part of the store owner. If the store owner purchase used items off of residents that will not sell, they lose money.

There are practical advantages over buying new items instead of used items in SL. One of them is version updates. Like with software, many content creators are constantly upgrading their products. They will often probably not be willing to upgrade the items of people who bought them secondhand. Objects in SL do not age; at least not the way things in RL do. Engines don't degrade and wear down, door hinges don't break. Instead the world around them changes, and version updates to the world itself have a tendancy to "break" many scripted items. So, both to benefit from "repair" and from item upgrades if the creator offers them, it benefits the consumer to shop directly from the creator. For this same reason, it also benefits creators to offer free repair and upgrades to existing customers. It's a self-reinforcing structure, but not legally-binding or anything. Market principles of creator and consumer pursuing their own self-interests.

It's one reason why merchants like Cubey Terra are so successful. Aside from how nice and reasonably priced. his things are, he has kept up a record of steady upgrades to them, and offered them free of charge to people who bought earlier models. Francis Chung should also be noted. Her Seburo weapons, though expensive, come with a rather reassuring lifetime guarantee and future unlimited upgrades.

Shiryu,

As an added point, there is another perspective of self-interest to consider. That of the reseller. This person wants to stay in business, and wants to be successful, and wants to make money (off of the effort of others, as you put it). If his business model depends on buying no-copy/ transfer items from a creator, and reselling them to others, it is in his interest to ensure the future of his business. The creator might stop selling the items at any time she chooses, or might also decide to change her permissions to no-transfer....perhaps even directly because she is peeved that the reseller didn't ask permission to sell her items.

So it's in the self-interest of resellers to cultivate good relationships with creators. They will also, by doing this, often be able to arrange volume discounts, or less work-intensive methods of taking the items from creator to customer.

Let the resellers, customers and creators persue their own self-interests, and enforce the permissions system as-is, and you will start to find that an invisible hand guides the economy down the road.

Hmmm, an invisible hand in the economy. What a great metaphor, I'm so bloody clever. I think I'm going to go copyright that saying, don't any of you start using it.....or selling it.

Several creators here seem to be focusing on 'negatives'. What about positives? Someone bought your product originally and now no longer needs/wants it. They have a few choices: delete it, leave it in their inventory forever, give it to a friend or resell it. Them deleting it or leaving it in their inventory, that is the WORST scenario for the original creator. Why? Because their product will have no more public exposure from this consumer. Giving it to a friend is good because if they use the product or displayed somewhere public, then its exposure which could result in inquiries about it and future sales for the creator. And to me, reselling it is not much different than giving it to a friend. At least by selling it the creatore still has a chance at more exposure and more sales. Who knows, maybe the 2nd hand buyer never would have seen the product if it wasnt for the 2nd hand sale? Now obviously if someone was buying and reselling higher thats wrong. But you have to ask yourself, if alot of your product is ending up at a second hand store, what are you doing wrong that no one wants to keep your products in the first place?

Why in real life is it ok but in a virtual world is is not morally correct? I think telling someone they dont fully own something once they buy it is not morally correct.

The only thing that would not be moral is if your selling a copyable item.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Came back to edit to add.

In real life. A car manufacture has to create each individual car itself. In this world, you just keep selling copies of that same exact object. To say the person who bought that object, does not have to right to resell it when they are done makes no sense at all. The content creator is not hurt in anyway and the only thing stopping other people from getting some of thier money back is GREED.

I do sell things I create. What people do with it after they leave my shop is not my business. If they decide they didnt like or can no longer use what they purchased, fine go sell it for half price.

But that is exactly what the original poster of this thread asked.



Absolutely wrong, expecially if people begin to go to second hand stores before the actual merchant stores and the go to the merchant store only if they cant find it cheaper as a second hand. If the trend becomes popular this implies an helluva loss in sales for the original merchants.



Yes but can exploit them. Using a transfer permission to establish a regular lucrative business means exploiting a permission, that was not sure given for that purpose.



false, you can set the original for sale.



The percentage of products that need or receives version updates is minimal. And they influence a second hand market even less since most of them (veichles, most weapons, etc) are already set to copy/notransfer.
With most products, if you buy second hand there is absolutely NO difference in buying it from the original crerator or from a reseller, you are buying a finished products that will in most cases never be updated and that is in MINT condition. Thus the difference from real life. The lack in condition difference makes second hand buying MUCH more advantageous in SL than in RL.



Cubey Terra sells his items as copy/notransfer thus protecting his sales from people that want to lucrate on his creativity and effort.



Copy/notransfer again.
I try to avoid putting my items for sale as notransfer (besides a efw exceptions), but if i have to do it to protect my sales i will.

There goes the civil tone. Anybody want to place bets on how long before Jeska needs to step in?

Ok Beau. Greed is NOT the only reason why I would set an item to No Transfer.

And owning a second hand shop is a gracious public utility service? It's greed as well, but while a creator has all the right of the world in being greedy (even if i would use a different word) over his own creativity, the owner of the second hand shop is greedy over things made by someone else, much less morally acceptable, at least in my eyes. If one wants to lucrate over sales, he can do his own items, simple.



I never argued the right of people to do yard sales to empty their invntories over things they dont want anymore. What i don't like is people buying from such people in order to stock regular commercial activities in order to undercut the original merchant and lucrate upon someone else's creativity.