Disallow resale at increased price

Define spyware in SL context.

Is it puting a listener in an object that reports back to me whatever anyone says around it? Well, that's a TOS violation anyhow.

Is it putting something in it that tells me whenever it changes ownership? Well, I havn't done that and probably wont, but I could see the logic... If you want to be able to support your vehicals and people insist on reselling them, it would actually make a lot of sense. And it's no more 'spyware' than the game reporting who bought your vehical originaly.

Is it putting a hidden listen in the script to kill the vehical at the creators desire? That's kinda hazy ethicly, and I can't see myself doing it, really.

Is it putting something in it that, whenever it changes owner, or whenever its rezed, or something, says "This vehical was originaly purchased for XXX dollars, if you payed more, you were ripped off and contact bob foo?" That's not 'spying', really, and I think I'm actually doing to figure out some good, non-annoying system of doing that for anything I sell in the future that is transferable.

Yes, the Lindens have all sorts of statistics and stuff on what we buy, do in SL, but it is their game.

If I purchase an object, clothes, script, whatever, it becomes mine. Otherwise it is not a sale, its a rental. You don't want people to resell at a higher price, then don't make it resellable.

If you are going to put some sort of script in it that lets the 'new' owner know they purchased it at a higher price than the original then you need to let the original purchaser know ahead of time that this script is in the objects they buy from you. Otherwise it is sneaky, devious, and to me, unethical. Be up front with potential buyers.

Also, if I have an item I purchased, and someone else wants the specific object I have, I will sell it at a higher price. Its called making a profit. Also its MY object now, not yours. Somehow most of you seem to forget you Sold the item. Don't sell things if you don't want them possibly resold.

I'm not in SL to make a profit - ruins the fun for me - but if someone starts putting spyware into the objects I buy, I will complain and file abuse reports. No one, aside from the Lindens, needs to know to who and for how much I possibly resell items for.

If you want an example of a script that informs each old and new owner about the transfer of an item, such that players are warned (after the fact) that they may have bought something for more than the original creator is selling it for...

Come to Miramare 57,266 and take a copy of the White Elephant there.

In the elephant, the script is open-permissions. If you use a modified copy of it in your objects, lock it's permissions before starting to sell your object.

Give free copies of the un-modified White Elephant to others that may want to use this tech in their objects.

Woe be to he (or she) who charges more for the White Elephant. Or at least IM be to he (or she)...

It is not spyware, as it listens for nothing, and only IMs the two parties involved in the current transfer of ownership.

Camille, if you're not in it for the money why sell at a higher price?

Oh... also... authentication via checking for ownership change doesn't work unless the reseller actually rezzes it after they buy it. That's why you'd have to use a license server or hard code the owner's identification into the object. As Tiger will attest, it would be great if we could put a notecard or something into an object in inventory before giving it.

What's the point of owning something if you never rez it?

I give up. I should learn from history. The exact same kind of insufferable whiners have, throughout history, always gotten what they wanted through the sheer power of complaining loud enough that people will do anything to shut them up.
I remember last year, I found this cool place called SL where you could right click on any object in the world and copy its texture for your own use.
I remember actually being able to give something to someone without having to painstakingly set permissions on both the object and each and every god damn script, notecard, texture, and landmark in its inventory. I just love clicking checkboxes. Makes SL so much fun.
I remember when people trusted each other, when we actually had freedom.
But, as always, people LOVE exchanging freedom for security. I guess if Benjamin Franklin couldn't teach you anything, I'm not the one who's going to.
It shocks and appalls me that people are incapable of recognizing the value of the doctrine of first sale.

Spare me, please.

This isn't about my profit, or hell, even anyone elses. I have legitimate reasons for not wanting my products resold, regardless of if you care to admit that or not. Updates. Replacements. Technical support. Not getting my name linked with people ripping other people off.

Yes, it is about my security. I don't put hours and hours of work into something to have it screwed up by someone else out to make a quick buck and then *I* have to do the cleanup work.

This isn't an issue of capitalism or democracy or freedom or any such overly dramatic nonsense.

Huns - to be honest I tend to delete, I don't give away or resell. I was stating an example.

Tiger - if you don't state ahead of time when the purchaser buys the original item that there is a script like this in it, then that's wrong.

Reitsuki - I disagree with you. Unless you state these scripts are running ahead of the sale, then its wrong to have them in there.

____

Why don't you just pick and choose who you sell to? Wouldn't that be easier? You could set up a checklist of items the purchaser has to read and agree to before they can even give You money for the item. Then blast them if they happen to resell or modify the item.
**add - This part is sarcasm**
______

Eggy - I agree with you on this stuff.

So be it. I prefer to help people avoid getting ripped off.

Moot point, in any event. I havn't added any of those scripts, nor do I plan to I suspect. I'm just moving to copy/no trans.



Lets see... needlessly complicate the process, or add one tiny script. Which one is easier?

The last bit you quoted was sarcasm on my part.

Reitsuki - however noble your reasons may be, you do not have the legal right to forbid someone from reselling your products, whatever the price may be.
Since version 1.2 and the new Linden policies on copyrights, when you are making a sale in SL, you are efectively making a sale IRL. All RL laws apply in SL, and you do not have the right to ask for a feature with the sole purpose of allowing you to break the law.
In fact, the new permissions system will be based around Creative Commons-style contracts, which are very much legally binding IRL.
Real companies also have to support multiple versions of products, and supply updates, etc.
I suggest you bundle a "windows update" feature in your programs, asking the user if he would like to check for updates. If you direct users to your nearest store and use llRemoteLoadScriptPin, you should be able to automatically update your products without any hassle or human intervention at all.

I can *already* prevent someone from reselling my object, Eggy. It only takes the un-checking of a single box.

The only difference in this case being, I'm actually trying to allow *more* freedom to the people who buy the stuff.



I'm under no *obligation* to provide upgrades, unless through some error of mine a feature I advertised as being in the vehicle isn't there. Products are sold with the proviso that the code is being bought as-is. The fact that I *do* offer free upgrades is something I do because I feel like it. I know people who dont.



Except that my upgrades aren't always just changing a script a bit. They might be adding or completely removing entire scripts, adding textures, changing textures, or even an ugprade to the model.

Then what the heck is your problem? Why add the additional spyware.



By putting in scripts that prevent people from doing what they want with an object or a script that proclaims they are abusers of the object by reselling higher?





Again, why the fuss?? If you're under no obligation then why all this trouble to spy on the items after they've been sold. If you don't think they've purchased the item fairly, then don't do upgrades. But don't make everyone pay for that by putting in the spyware.






Why not just include a notecard specifying how you'll upgrade the object under certain conditions?

*sigh*

I've noticed on these boards that the more times you say something, the less times people hear it, but I'll try this once once again.

I have not put any such scripts in my items.

I probably am not going to.

Got it?

The only one I have even *thought* of putting in my objects was a memo of the original sale price. This is not, no matter how much you claim it is, spyware. Never the less, I have *not* done this thus far, and unless I see compelling reasons to keep selling my vehicals no copy/transfer, I'm not going to.



And, once again, I am *not* spying on anyone. I never have. And never will. Thats a TOS violation at it's core.

As for 'making everyone pay', meh. First, for the third time this post, I'm not spying on anyone, and wont. But for the case of the point, lets say I went ahead with my idea to have an item inform whoever owned it what the original price it was payed for. It could even be done in a non-intrusive manner... A line in a no-modify readme, and set the car up so that it wont start unless the readme is present.

Who have I 'made pay' in that case? Unless you were activly *trying* get away with doing something I have made prefectly clear I don't want done with my stuff and have, further, gone to effort to *remove* evidence that the vehical was originaly price X, how have you in *any way* been effected by this?



Information about the warenty fine print will be spelled out more in the next general upgrade (documentation included), yes. I still don't like the thought that someone is potentialy paying *more* for one of my vehicals and getting *less*. I dislike my work being assosiated with that type of exchange.

My apologies for specifying that you were doing the aforementioned stuff - scripts, etc. Just the general tone of the thread was going in that direction.

But I disagree with the 'orginal price' stuff. Why can't someone sell an item they have at a higher price?


oh and...

*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*

not enough posts have those.

To counter, why can't I make the original sale price known? Who have I harmed by doing this?

You dont need a new feature for that. You can put a price tag on it

ok its a draw. i don't agree w/you and you don't agree with me. We'll just go round in circles at this point.

Actually, I'd kinda like someone to answer that question.

And Eggy, I'm not asking for that as a new feature. I can script that myself. What I would like is a middle of the road step, somewhere between absolutely forbidding transfers (Which I can do fine now) and saying "have at it, do whatever the hell you want".

If we already have the ability to forbid people from selling stuff, I dont see how putting a *less* restrictive version of that in the game is a difficulty.

Because there hasn't been a single suggestion here yet that can't be circumvented or broken. "Single" suggestion, I said. There have been some multi-suggestions that try to patch the broken idea to make it work, but that's just SO ugly.

What's really the beef here, anyway?

o Preventing others from making a profit on your work (even though you already made your asking price on the one they are selling)?
o Keeping track of everyone that has one, either for updating or for pure informational reasons?
o Stopping pawn-shop scumbait from duping newbies out of their lunch money with your object?
o Some other reason?

For number 3, The script I made will at least inform each new owner how much it should have costed and where they could have got it. Not a preventative, but it is educational, which does even more good. Besides, for every one person that tries to scam a noob, there are 20 people that will give them tons of free stuff. (We have NICE people in this world.)

For number two, there are new functions that let you update the contents of objects from afar. You can use that to keep all copies updated without caring who owns it anymore.

And for number 1, I say "tough". Let's say I make a left-handed dingus and sell copies of it for L$100. If someone decides they don't want theirs anymore, they can sell it for L$1000 if they can find someone gullible enough. I made my required $100 on that one already, there's no difference to me who owns it or how money changes hands between people OTHER THAN ME.

In the real world, things lose value when they aren't "new". Just look at the price tags on any garage sale. But if you can find the right person that REALLY wants what you have bought, and they can't find it anywhere else, they'll pay more than it's worth to get it NOW. Just look at eBay.

In Second Life, things don't wear out. They don't age or decay. (The exception being scripts that break due to changes in SL.) So objects retain all of their starting value. If someone bought a really cool gun and I want a copy, but they can't remember where they got it... I can offer to pay them more than they payed, the extra being compensation to them for having to go back and get themselves another.

I say, if person A sells something to person B, then person A should have NO say in what financial dealings person B has with person C, just because person A's creation is changing hands at the same time.

While we may own the copyright to our creations in SL, that doesn't give us the right to override a buyer's "fair use" rights.

I'm not trying to stand on principles here, I'm trying to look at the issue logically.

(And remember, the TOS is all about restrictions, not rights. Saying "I have a right to..." is a sign that someone hasn't been reading the rules, eh?

Does any of this make sense?

Edit: a meaning-changing typo

As far as I know, no one is arguing against a buyer's fair use. I agree that if Person A buys Vehicle X from me, if that vehicle is transferable, they have a right to re-sell their copy.

I do have a problem with people who assume the role of "resellers" or self-described "distributors" who buy up quantities of a product for the sole purpose of reselling. In the real world, you have to get permission to become a reseller. For example, you can't just buy up a stock of Hondas and start selling them from your shop -- you have to enter into an agreement with Honda first.

If a reseller abides by an agreement with creator and provides an actual service, such as customer support, then I wouldn't have any problem with it. IN that case, the reseller would be earning their profit.

Do we support a free SL market, or do we want Linden controls of the market, ie: price controls?

License servers. I'm telling you. They wanna make us act like Microsoft, so be it. You can say whatever you want about right to transfer. If it's my IP, and I say no one profits from it but me, you can buy a similar object from someone else or try to make it yourself if you don't like it. I don't feel compelled to spend over 50 hours working on something so that someone else can make profit with negligible effort. If they came to me it would be different, as we could arrange volume discounts, agree on who is responsible for techincal support, etc. I could at least have some say in the value adding process.

Now about llRemoteLoad___. As I understand it from reading the docs a while ago, this only works on modifiable objects. I really don't like that. I think if the script has the right PIN, that's all the authentication and permission that should be necessary. I DEFINITELY wouldn't sell a scripted resellable item with modify permissions turned on, no way. I don't need someone sneaking a malicious script onto some prim other than root and then selling it.

Eggy referenced a time when there was trust in SL. I've been ill used by liars and insincere people in SL. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to get fitted for a stovepipe hat and a monocle, so that I may properly inflict capitalism upon the proletariat.

In world, I have a basic rule of thumb. If someone approaches you with goods to sell, and that person is reletively new, there is a good chance you are being scammed. I'm not saying that all newbie salesavs are scammers. Some do have original content. The genuine ones later open stores, or partner with established shopkeepers. Bottom line, spend your cash wisely. Buyer beware.

Nope. Just have to own the object, and have the right PIN.