Second Hand Shops?

If Chip used any of his money obtained from making little virtual outfits in photoshop for Tsunami relief, or any charitable cause, I think you owe him an apology. That was a truly vulgar jab and it missed the point of the quote completely.

No, that was actually precisely Ayn Rand's point. And even if it wasn't Chip's, he should have known that.

Edited to add: what sort of person "who dispenses gifts he has not produced" do you suppose Rand is talking about?

I think you're taking an Ayn Rand quote WAAAAAAY out of context and using it to to distort Chip's message. There are better ways to make your point.

Ayn Rand's point was that the creators of resources should be celebrated more than the those that redistribute those same resources to those in need.

And I agree with that.

And I still think your post was repulsive.

You're right, it was. No matter how much I disagree with the sentiment expressed, there was no call for expressing it that way. I'm sorry to Chip and to anyone who read my post.

I still disagree with the sentiment expressed.

That's totally fair.

Sheesh, go off to eat a pizza and all hell breaks loose, hehe. I had a feeling that my Ayn Rand quote might ruffle some feathers but I'm rarely one to shy away from stirring the pot. You're reading more into the quote than is actually there, Strangeweather. Her point is that without production there's nothing to distribute. One of her primary beefs was the way in which the most productive members of a society can become slaves to the collective who feel a sense of entitlement to benefit from that production because they are unable to do for themselves. She wasn't speaking against altruism. Instead she was speaking out against forced servitude that was contrary to the creators desires or consent. She would have applauded a wealthy and successful person aiding the tsunami victims through voluntary altrusim. She would find it a travesty if that person's coffers were raided against his/her will by others who decided on his behalf that the fruits fo his labors should go to that cause. I happen to agree. Rand was in many ways a hopeless idealist, but one thing that people generally miss when evaluating her philosophy is that it had spotless ethics as its cornerstone... something the typical person doesn't live up to. That's where her philosophy falls down. Anyway it seemed a rather appropriate quote for the conversation at hand

my comment wasn't directed solely at you but to anyone who uses the "no copy/transfer" permission and still expects to be protected from (the inconsequential and irrelevant) secondary market by moralizing the issue. i don't take into account anyones unique business model because i assume "anyone" is accounting for LL's universal permission system.

i realize many of you are forced to use this permission setting to be able to offer refunds. in this regard, i think it's more useful to petition LL to offer a transfer option for no transer items in a manner thay unhygienix proposed whereby all instances of the item would delete themselves. in my opinion, artificial moralization of the issue, particularly by shiryu, is underhanded and unethical.


i think that it is chip who is decontextualizing this quote to misrepresent himself. it was really jarring for me to read an ayn rand quote in chip's sig of all people, because chip and rand are a total misfits. ayn rand is a novelist posing as a third rate philosopher who's remaining purpose is to justify selfishness and exploitation. chip is quite the opposite of that!

btw, aimee - resources are not created.

Well thanks, but I've actually read all of Rand's works including most of her essays and I agree with her point of view more often than I disagree. It's the staunch individualist in me. Her philosophy isn't antithetical to fairness and generosity. Selfishness is simply self-interest. If you don't have self-interest you're a slave to the interests of others. That's not a rational place to be. Far from justifying exploitation she spent most of her life speaking against it. I'm more of an altruist than she was, but by my own choice, which ulitmately is the whole point. I'll happily be compared to her any time. She was a remarkable woman despite her faults and quirks. Any more discussion of Ayn Rand really belongs in off topic though

I think you may be thinking of natural resources? I was referring to any supplies that allow us to function. Food, vehicles, medical supplies, computers, etc. I would call those resources though since they are not natural resources you need to create them (except for certain kinds of food).

Not been scared off just been having a go at this RL game.

Jauani i dunno about going into business with you what benefit can you offer me?

Funny, i don't think i need to "artificially" moralize an issue, every issue that potentially damages someone has a moral side to it, and if i'm not wrong that is exactly what Heather asked at the beginning of the thread (and i am fairly sure she asked out of respect for the efforts creators put in their work, too bad not everyone knows what respect for other's work is).
As i already stated, i avoid putting notransfer of my items (when possible, of course items that are set copy are notransfer as well) to allow people to give gifts to friends, or to occasionally clean out their inventories, but this shouldn't allow anyone to assume they can build their own business over MY work without any respect for my efforts, expecially not without asking (if they ask and accept the possibility of a refusal from some creators they can do whatever they want with the products of the ones that give them permission). Again, if anyone refuses even this little act of courtesy and respect that is asking for permission, i really begin to smell something fishy.
I wouldn't call the potential of a generalized second hand market unconsequential and irrelevant, nor i would call the moral aspect of the damage it can cause "artificial". It's simply a fact, if you do your business at the expense of someone else using his own work against him you get in a moral issue more than a practical one, debatable as much as you want, but if you chose to ignore it, it's exactly that, your choice. But pretending it doesn't exist or call it "artificial" just to try and have people ignore it, well, that honestly seems to me underhanded and unethical.

Well, I've had a night to calm down and think about this a little. I'm still sorry for the way I expressed myself last night. I do want to add one more thing, but this time I'm going to try to stay as civil as possible.

I'm a software architect, and I create things of value for a living, effectively out of thin air and what's in my mind. I build things and I design things that other people build. I create things that other people use. In that sense, I expect I'm living the objectivist dream.

And you know what? I love what I do. I like going to work, it's a great gig, it's really fun to do, and it even pays well. I'm really glad I get to do it for a living.

Here's the thing though: I don't think it makes me a better person than someone who does something else for a living. It makes me of more economic value to my employer than the guy who answers the phones and helps the customers with their problems -- which is nice, because that means I get paid more. But it doesn't mean I'm of more value as a person than that guy. And that's what Ayn Rand thinks. I find that view horribly myopic.

If anything, I think your value as a person comes from how you treat the people around you. (Admittedly, this speaks rather poorly of me after my tirade last night.) I think some of the best people I've ever met don't give a ton of economic value to the economy -- some of them have been stay at home moms. I think I've met some people who generated vast amounts of economic activity who seemed empty and soulless. I think Ayn Rand doesn't know what she's talking about.



Yeah, probably so. Sorry.

I think it's a myopic view also, and a bit of a distortion of the Objectivist viewpoint. You're tacking an abstract value judgement onto something that's about economic value. If we're talking about the production of goods the point is simply that without the creator of those goods there's nothing of econimic value to argue about in the first place. That's a simple statement of fact. Here's another relevant quote...

"Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others"

The value judgements tend to come from the other side of the argument with the assumption that content creators are somehow greedy or that they assume they're better than anyone else. Those things are projected onto productive people by others due to resentment, envy, dependence, and myriad other reasons. The notion that a producer is obligated to produce to benefit consumers or secondary markets rather than simply to fulfill the need to create as an end in itself is what she spoke out against. That attitude casts the creator in a role of servitude, and if he refuses to produce for the benefit of others against his will he is labeled in all the ways Shiryu has been in this thread. He is seen as greedy simply because he desires to retain control of the products of his creativity or intellect. The reality (and Rand's point) is that the true greed lies with those who claim an entitlement to things they did not themselves create. That you would make the suggestion that speaking out on behalf of the rights of creators is somehow denegrating to those who do not create only proves the point of the orignal quote... "we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement."

Here's another relevant quote...

"No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave."



I agree with you, but you're speaking about abstract value. This thread is about things of actual economic value. Without people creating those objects that have value in the economy there would be no discussion of the rights of people to establish secondary markets for them. So... as I said earlier... trying to turn this into an argument about abstract "value" is quite beside the point.

Rand was quite comfortable basing abstract value judgements on economic value. That's the source of my objection.



And if there were no trade or no consumption of goods, there would be nothing of economic value either, even if all the same things were produced. And the best measurement of the size of an economy is the amount of trade that occurs, not how many things are produced. Production, consumption, and trade are all inextricably linked, and none have any value without the other.

Arguing that one is the source of all value without the others is like arguing that roadbuilders are the most important members of society, because without roads no one could get to your store.



I don't think you're greedy, and I only think you think you're better than anyone else to the degree that you have apparently argued it by citing Ayn Rand.



You are free to create to whatever degree it floats your boat, and free not to create to the same degree. If you do create something, you have no particular obligation to pass it along to anyone else, for free or for payment.

However, I think that if you do choose to sell something to someone else, you transfer at least some of the rights to that thing to someone else. What some of those rights are is the subject of this thread.



You don't get to retain total control over things you are selling. For example, if you sell an article of clothing without also transferring the right to wear it, arguably you are not selling it at all. The question at issue is merely what rights are retained and what rights are not.

Jauani had the same problem. You're not objectively considering the merits of the argument. You're concentrating on your own bias against the source of the quotes. Much like people project their biases onto content creators whenever these types of arguments crop up. I believe this is due to the very same social conditioning in regards to abstract value that Rand was speaking of in the first quote... which is precisely why I quoted it in the first place. It's true.



Economic value is secondary. For the creator the act of creation is usually an end in itself. The simple irrefutable fact is that the linkage between production, consumption, and distribution is not equal. Without production the other two can't exist while production depends on neither of the other two.



see above



Well it's nice of you to be so honest. Most people won't come right out and say that they're speaking from bias and making assumptions about other people's character because of it. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly



Yes of course. What those rights are is indeed the subject of this thread. Now that we have that cleared up do you care to opine about what those rights should be in regards to secondary markets?

I just think the whole process is like a pyramid, where all the other levels are built on a foundation of production. You can build a pyramid without a tip, but not without a foundation. In the same way, content creators can distribute without middlemen, but middlemen can't distribute without content. This is not to downplay the usefulness of middlemen, but Chip is right, if people aren't creating content then resellers, buyers, and this whole conversation wouldn't even exist.



Greed doesn't come to mind when I think of Chip. He's a sweetheart.




Well I agree with everything you are saying here as that was the original direction of this thread. But now it's no longer a discussion of the pros and cons of different sale policies. Instead there are tones of "content creator obligation" which I think is unproductive. Content creators should be no more obligated to set their sale items a certain way than customers should be obligated to buy something.

I am generally biased towards the assumption that if you quote someone, you are supporting the position they affirm in what you quote. If you hadn't meant to agree with Ayn Rand, I wouldn't have expected you to cite her approvingly.

In fact, if you're saying that you cited Ayn Rand (and mentioned that you did so approvingly), but that you can't be held accountable for her positions that you cited, I think you are being somewhat disingeneous.



Umm, in your previous post you said that what was at issue was economic value, not abstract value. Which is it?



Which would seem to buttress the claim that Rand thinks people who create things have more abstract value than people who don't. And from this, it sure sounds like you do too. Please help me understand where this link is in error.



In terms of abstract value, this is true.



All I meant was that if you argue X, I typically conclude that you believe X. If this is erroneous, I hope you will correct me.



In general, I think that if you transfer something at all, you transfer the right to use it as the consumer sees fit. If you transfer something with modify rights, you transfer the right to modify it as the consumer sees fit. It you transfer something with copy rights, you transfer the right to copy it as the consumer sees fit. And if you transfer it with retransfer rights, you transfer the right to transfer it as the consumer sees fit. I think trying to base a system on anything else is confusing and counterproductive.

I have vehemently toiled this thread over and over in my mind and to add any coherent thought may lead to further deluding the topic.

However, I do have some simple questions that may answer this whole issue in the first place.

How many people own Cars?

How many people lease Cars?

On either stance of this in question #1
People who “Buy” a car.
Do any laws as to whom they resell it to bind them?
No! As General motors is not going to say "No! you cannot trade that car to the Toyota dealership" or "No! you cannot put that car in the I wanna’ paper and let any Joe Schmoe buy it. "

Versus those that lease do have to abide by laws as the car still belongs to the parent company that leased it to them.

In Second Life if we look at this objectively it can be said people who purchase Items with Transfer permissions are in essence “Buying” that product.

However, in the case of No transfer you can’t really say leasing either as then the item can no longer be transferred back to the original creator/owner.

So how do you classify No Transfer? Primarily it can be classified as a disposable product.

In certain cases such as Skins/Vehicles and multi use scripted Items the creators put No Transfer / No mod but leave the copy option in full force so those Items can be propagated throughout that individuals inventory. In the case of Vehicles it’s to prevent loss through glitches and errors.

So in respect to the above analogy can we say that if an Item is labeled Transfer, that the Item can in essence be resold without remuneration?

If we can all agree on that simple context alone.
Then we have solved the issue of this whole thread.
Even through the quagmire of debates that have followed since my last post.

Shadow

Yay Shadow is finally here!



Agreed. But I don't think anybody is arguing against this. Chip even encouraged the pawn-shop idea.

The question is, If someone starts buying Chip's inventory in high volumes, opens their own store and resells Chip's stuff at a mark up...should Chip have a say in the matter? Would Chip be wrong to reset his invetory to "no-transfer" to stop the reselling?

That's true. But if no one uses anything you create, it is economically worthless. If no one enjoys what you create, it's hard to say it's worth very much. If you create something for yourself and enjoy it yourself, that makes it worth something. If other people purchase it (or obtain it free) and enjoy it, that makes it worth even more. Distributing things of value to people who will value them makes them worth more than they would be otherwise.

Producers are, without a doubt, important. And incredibly valuable. I don't want anyone to read this and think that I don't value producing things. But it's just as valid to say that consumption is the source of all value as to say that production is.



Which is among the many reasons I shouldn't have opened with both barrels last night. I have no problem with Chip -- he seems like a nice guy. I just disagree with something he's said.



I think some of the arguments are simply over what is implied by making something available as a "transferrable" item, something no one is obligated to do. I think reasonable people can disagree on this.

I think other people think they deserve things simply because someone else has produced it. I think these people are completely wrong.

To be honest Aimee that goes back to my previous posting days ago. It would be Chips decision as to what actions he wanted to take to curb this.

A. he could set No transfer...which would kind of go against his charature as we know him.

B. he could raise his prices and make it not profitable for the individual to resell as I mentioned.

C. he could pull the product from the shelves and let the current inventory that is out there distribute itself untill the demand for it grew emensly. Then he could sell on a 1 to 1 bases but that wont happen either as his time is already engaged in customer service.

To me none of the above listed actions would be wrong as they are the tools that Chip has at his disposal to control product flow. Otherwise the market would be flooded and that product would be devalued greatly from both aspects of primary seller and reseller.

Shadow

Well I hear you. The thing is, your arguement is much more valid in RL than SL. Without distributors in RL you would need to hitch up the wagon and prepare for a 12 day journey across the fens so you can visit Auntie Aimee to get a pair of her hand knit toe socks. Having a well oiled distribution system makes life easier for everybody. But still... people CAN make that 12 day journey to get Aimee's socks without distributors, but distributors can't distribute them without Aimees)

In SL on the other hand, the moment a user wants a *PREEN* item, they are seconds away from one of my stores.




Well yes. I don't want to downplay the importance of consumers. They give me money and I like anybody that gives me money. But the ideal state is when every individual produces AND consumes. This discussion is mostly about the middlemen, people whos value is in streamlining the exchange between producers and consumers. In my "12 day journey" example above I think I expressed the importance of middlemen in RL. In SL however... Its a bit more of a tough sell.

This will be my last post on this subject since I can tell we're just going to go around in circles. I posted a quote, exactly what I think it means, my thoughts on its relevance to the discussion at hand, and expressly stated that I think it's true and that I agree with it. If you want to extrapolate from my agreement with the sentiments expressed in that quote that I'm a bad person that's up to you, and quite outside the scope of the quote and the argument, and simply a demonstration of your own bias. It says more about your character than it does about mine, and frankly, does wonders for proving the point I was making by posting it in the first place. I don't think you're quite grasping it.



Econimic value is a byproduct of production, ergo it is secondary. That's not an abstract concept. When I speak of abstract value I mean the kind of "worth as a person" assertions you've tried to insert into the argument.



It actually says nothing at all about what Rand thinks of people who create. She's talking about the abstract value judgements of others and the relative (and somewhat irrational) subjective value they place on production in relation to other things. If we're talking about creating things of non-abstract concrete economic value then production is the most important thing. There's nothing refutable about that. It's simple objective fact.




That has nothing to do with abstract value. We're talking concrete economic value. Without production there is no distribution or consumptions. Again this isn't a matter of abstract moralizing no matter how much you want to turn it into that.



Huh? Doesn't this rather go without saying? I've already explained at length my argument, it's relevance, and why I believe it to be true. I've also pointed out how you're a good example of it. All you're doing here is trying to justify making assumptions about my character based on your own bias and dislike for an author I quoted. What you meant is "if you quote Rand, I'll make assumptions that you're a bad person, and then put the burden of proof on you to disprove my bias." Rather specious if you ask me.



I agree with all of those things... and none of those things have really been in question in this thread. What is in question is whether or not I also transfer the right to make a living off my labor when I sell my product to an end user? I don't believe so. I could go down to the gap and buy one of everything in the store. Would I then have the legal right to put up a store down the street reselling all those goods? Nope. I'd probably get sued. There's a substantial difference between buying something that you want to use and then selling it through a second hand store when you're done with it, and buying items solely for the purpose of reselling them in competition with the place you bought them from in the first place. I think that's beyond fair use and should only happen with the express permission of the creator of the goods.

I disagree with your characterization of the quote, but I can't think anything that would be served by discussing Rand any more.



I don't think you're a bad person. I'm sorry if I have led you to think I do.



Economic value is, by definition, a byproduct of trade. Whatever something is traded for is of equivalent economic value. That's simply what economic value means. Something that is produced but never traded has no economic value.



Actually, people do this all the time on eBay. To the best of my knowledge, it is perfectly legal.