Economy and the newbie

I don't think anything prevents this now, Travis. If the creator sold something at a commercial price, no-one will object to you reselling it at any price you choose (I hope). If it has rarity value, its price could go sky-high. What price the one semi-mythical giant cube thats out there somewhere, as big as a sim?

Surely what we are discussing here is how to honor the intent of creators to donate items for free. Whether we should, and if so how.

Or am I unaware of some pretty inaproppriate accusations floating around, relating to things that were never free ?

I'm sorry but I just dont believe your statements here.
Several *really* nice people like Osprey have given you the benefit of the doubt (unwisely in my view) and even praised you.
Then you respond with this?

It just all sounds kind of disengenuous to me. Especially when you threw that bit in at the end of your first post that implies the you may have bought the items at a yard sale. Good cover!

I'm with Travis. I dont think someone 60 days old did not know about this being "wrong." You have by your own admission been watching these forums and reading daily for a couple of weeks at least. During that time there have been several threads about this.

Morals are fairly easy really, and checking if you have permission to sell something is standard in RL or SL.

Also... yes!

Society is *full* of "unwritten rules" (again RL or SL), if you aren't used to it yet, you should be.

Does this one person's precise circumstances and behaviour really matter much, Dianne ? If we are to learn from it, shouldn't we consider that this trap is still there for other noobs to fall into - that we currently have no technical way of honoring the creators intent - and that we easily could, once the permissions system is updated ?

It's not a good welcome for someone new, to unnecessarily leave a trap in their path, and then just point it out when they fall in, with varying degrees of kindness and politeness. A few will indeed respond other than humbly. A newbie to SL is not necessarily a newbie to life. And remember, they may not even have got the objects free.

Thinking further about the technical issues in expanding the permissions system, however, it may be more difficult than I first thought (isn't it always ?). Once things are boxed up together, restricting the box pricing could be complex. You would probably have to make "freebie-flagged" items untransferable except alone, or at least only when boxed together with other items at zero overall price. All more programming effort.

There were threads a couple of months ago in which some said that they would make their stuff no transfer if they caught people selling them - and they were horrified at stuff being sold for more (even though the obvious stuff about more sales was pointed out to them).

I came across someone selling Richard Stern's freebie skins today. They didn't know they had been released for $1 and had paid for them.

Of course they used to be on sale for $1k+. He sold them for $1 when he left the game - and they were not +copy so unless you bought them in that short time period they are not available.

Are they freebies that you should be able to sell (morally)? They are in short supply.

Why not sell freebies? If people think they are worth paying for then so be it. If you want some control then either make them no copy or no transfer. Making anything with full perms is a risk.

I'm a fairly tolerant person & I generally avoid confrontations but I have to admit, had I wandered across your shop I would also have been tempted to give you a negative behavioral rating for selling free content. Specially if you have items that are in the "Library" section of everyone's inventory. Although were you to stop I would have also later removed it.
I agree that you are "not forcing anyone to take your items" but the problem I see with selling free content is that the majority of people who wouldn't recognize they were free & would buy those items are newer members to the community. Which in turn can make people think of newbies being scammed out of their money and that can get folks a bit protective and reactionary. Truthfully, if you had spent a couple hundred dollars buying stuff at a shop and then wandered to a free place and everything you just bought was there wouldn't you have felt a bit ripped off?
While I can only imagine this was not your intention, I hope now that you are aware you've stopped selling those items. I think the business idea is an interesting one but it may be worth your time to occasionally wander to such places as YadNi's Junkyard and that free items area in Stillman to keep updated on what's free & what isn't. If just to save you the hassle of defending yourself & your motives.

-Sun

Interesting and revealing example. Should any freebie necessarily be copyable too ?
I think that if we do get a "freebie-flag" permission it should probably force "copy" on. A freebie-locked object which is in limited supply which gives it rarity value seems to be a contradiction in terms. What possible logic is there in donating an object free to unknown people, but only a few of them ?

Ah, of course, to make them identify themselves, or come to your shop to get one. Thats not really generosity to the community, worthy of protection from reselling, though, is it ? And surely such an item should be no-transfer in the first place. No - I can still see no case for a freebie-locked transferable item which is no-copy.

Who'd be LL, and have to design these systems in an attempt to keep us all happy, eh?

I do think that a permission systems change is the answer. As SL grows, we cannot go on relying on an unwritten rule which has to keep being rediscovered. Not for something as important (and emotive) as this.

I disagree. I look at it as if it were a RL situation.

If I give an old sweater to the Salvation Army, I am just giving them the one sweater.
It can be pased around and re-sold or given away, but I did not give them a sweater duplicating machine.

.

*thinking*
But if it was given for unselfish motives, what possible reason is there for forbidding duplication, since (in SL) it would cost you no extra time or trouble to do so?

If it was given for selfish motives, who cares what you wanted done with it. Once you parted with it, you lost any moral right to further control its destiny. That continuing moral right surely derives only from the unselfishness of the giving motive ?

Or am I talking rubbish ? I'm getting tired, someone help me here.....

I would agree that it seems if yard sales and second hand stores are going to become prevalent, that some sort of re-vamp of the way in which things are priced or flagged as "free" has to take place.

When a customer picks up an item in a real second hand store, it is clear that the price on it is a secondary 'second-hand' price. They can assess the stated price based on their knowlege that the object is second hand and an estimate in their mind as to what price the original may have been.

In SL that kind of product familiarity is rare, especially for new players. There is no way for people to know if they are buying somethign first, second, or third hand other than the immediate circumstances of the purchase point. If the seller has a nice store, how are they to know the item is not new?

So I see that as more of a trap for new players than the "trap" of charging for free stuff, but I think a simple flag in the properties that says "not for resale" (and means it) might solve the whole problem.

Like open source materials.


.

I take the risk of being flamed with this post. I just want to make a parallel on the subject of morality.

So selling an item that was intended to be given for free is morally doubtful, that's debatable, but that's the market economics at work.

How about ripping off an item intended to be sold at a price and distributing for free? Everybody here will agree it is morally wrong and probably against the law. No matter if the asking price is outrageously high, nobody is forcing you to buy it.

Who here has never downloaded pirated music or movies? I'm talking real life.

I'll bet selling freebies doesn't look so evil now. How many freebies are sold in SL compared to the number of pirated MP3's downloaded everyday in RL?

Let the flaming come....

WooHooHoo-ooo
GO Pratyeka......................


Bit like fishing, isn't it ?

hehe

That's a point. keeps things in persepctive.
I dont download music however.

I dont see this whole thing as a real big deal, I just dont believe the person was so innocent is all.

I think you have pointed out the problem exactly.

The situation is caused by the fact that Linden Labs did not originally realise there would be a difference between selling an item and giving it away.

As far as I heard, many are asking for a fix and it might actually be in the works (involving seperation of the two options.)

This would make it possible to set things as *never* being for sale.

I hope so.

.

But if some freebies are limited - why shouldn't people pay for them? If limited freebies are going to get a resale value I'd rather it was done via the built in purchase mechanisms than via some TSO-style pay the person separately system. The fraud possibilities from expecting people to pay separately for goods as they are banned from buying them properly is worse than any moral damage from freebie seling.

Does this make sense? Maybe you ned to have seen how the trade in rare goods happened in TSO to see it.

How could such a feeling possibly be valid if you sold a nocopy transferable item ? You want to sell the same sample twice? Just set no-transfer. Gives you a huge benefit no RL designer has. Forces your buyer to junk it when no longer required. Even a manufacturer of spectacles, prosthetic limbs or false teeth doesn't get quite such absolute protection.

*tries not to flame*

But this is reversed.. I don't download music.. But downloading music is taking something you SHOULD be paying for, and getting it free. Selling free to copies is taking something that should be openly availible, without cost, for everyone and charging for it.

Although I see peoples point about rarity or expired free to copies, all the ones I saw in this example were LINDEN free to copies and still availible at stillman.

But even so, if the origional creator of the item gave full permissions and wanted it to be free to copy I don't think ANYONE should profit from it, no matter how old it is. But thats just my opinion and it doesn't apply in this case, anyway..

Freebies are copyable. Anything freely copyable can never become "rare".

If it isn't copyable, then I don't think anyone will have any problem with reselling it. (Well, there are always nut cases.)

Buster

In principle I think I agree, but surely this is only practical (or fair to enforce rigidly in the more marginal situations) if the permissions system is changed to allow the creators wishes to be flagged, and therfore, since its just as easy, enforced.

And I must ask - IF the intention really is pure generosity, why was the item not set COPIABLE as well as transferable? What possible reason except self-interest ?

I'm quite happy for someone to come up with a good generous reason, but I can't see one.

If its copiable, rarity won't occur, so people wont compete for it and try to bypass the controls by offering (or demanding) money directly.

All my free to copies AND the ones in this case were set copy, so I don't see that as an issue. But most of the time the reason for not setting free to copies as copiable is to make people fetch them from your location and therefore not pure generousity.. But doesn't change the fact they shouldn't be resold..

Quite so, in this case then. I'm just trying to work out exactly how the permission should be changed for the fairest and most logical result.

Seems to me that allowing a price-locked transferrable $0 freebie to be also non-copy would only cause trouble and confusion, and is not necessary for the genuinely generous creator, or for the recipient of his generosity.

The sale is yours. You would have sold say 20 copies to me. I then take the risk of selling the 20 copies for a little more to cover my risk, my rent of a shop in X location, and my time. You're selling more.

As a designer I'm confortable with specialist "best of the world" clothing shops appearing. I'd get more sales and exposure. We'd need a vendor produced that allows us to sell limited numbers of objects and things would sell out, like in rl.

I think this is the way forward for the clothing business. Having a little stall in every location doesn't scale - and the middle man would take the risk that I currently take in renting in unknown locations.

Ahhhh.. We need seperate give away/resell permissions.. one day *day dreams*

Nope - you get no copy freebies. Some of Richard Stern's freebies were just +trans. As he's not in world anymore numbers are limited.

And if you leave the world Zap - and your cult freebie is in limited supply - why shouldn't someone sell them if people are prepared to pay for them?

A real freebie (if we are give objects freebie protection) has to have full permissions.