Can we sell things...

that are made by other people?

Hi Andrew, have moved this to Land and the Economy, as the section this was origionally posted in was a no-reply section, so no one could answer you.

While its possible to sell other peoples creations, its considered extremely bad ettiquette to do so without the creators express permission. The creater may also put in a notecard or the discription line that the item isn't to be resold.

The other thing is permissions, if an item is no transfer, you won't be able to. And if its no copy, you'll lose your copy when you sell it.

Hope this helps!

Zap

One small addition to the above is that it's not necessarily impossible to get the creator's permission, provided you have something to offer the creator.

Some malls, for example, charge a percentage of sales instead of rent - although these are becoming less popular now. Web based distributors, like SLExchange, also charge a percentage for providing a method of sale, although obviously creating a site like this requires a lot of work and the market may already be saturated. And some creators explicitly state that they are open to offers of commissioned resale, such as Ante Flan. In fact some don't even require you to approach them in person - you can just buy a large number of their items in bulk, and then go ahead and sell them on (such as the Multi Gadget)

If you're highly social and interesting in selling things to other people (proactively selling, like a salesperson, not just opening a store) you may be able to get sponsored by a creator, which may not get you money but may get you some of their things for free to show to others. At least two friends of mine benefitted this way, one to the tune of around L$10000, so it's entirely possible if you're careful.

The etiquette of this is up for debate and this is only one side of the coin as far as answering the ethical portion of this question.

Permissions do allow for transfer of an item.

If you want to sell something in your inventory because you don't need or want it anymore, then I would say "sure, go ahead."

If you want to start a business reselling other people's items, then you should find out whether or not the seller allows that (merely having the transfer box checked is not an indication of this). Look for a notecard included with the item. If you can't find anything, contact the seller directly.

It is considered fine to sell "used" goods, that is, to sell the only copy of a thing that you own (items with permissions set to transfer but not to copy.)

It is considered low-life thievery to make copies of someone else's creations to sell, unless you have express permission to do it. It is also pretty low to sell a copyable item without permission.

If you talk to the creator and set up a deal to distribute their work, of course, that is another situation entirely.

Most people don't have a problem with their no copy stuff being sold on in my experience, especially if you sell it for less than they do - people will come and buy on the basis of that, and you could give it away.

That's not universal, but common I would say.

The place it becomes very unpopular is collecting and selling free content. I'm specifically not talking about somewhere like Yadni's which sells huge collections for $1 each, I don't know of anyone that's made a freebie that has a problem with that. In fact a lot of people that make freebies send them to Yadni as well.

There are people who take full perms freebies, package them and sell them on for much higher numbers for single items. It is, within the TOS, strictly legitimate. The ethics of collecting freebies (which by their very nature are free after all) and selling them on for profit... well just about everyone is vocally, vehemently anti such a practise.

When I purchase an item -- it then belongs to me to do what I like with it. Use it, abuse it, sell it, give it away, or delete it .... as long as I am not violating the permissions set on the object by the creator. I feel no need to obtain further permission as "permissions" have already been set.

My two cents as a consumer.

*edit to add ... however, selling freebies is a big no no!

the funniest thing I saw was this ghetto idiot asking how to make money in sl, so out comes "camping chairs" "go to classes" etc, and he was all "i'm a busines man, I don't have time for that stuff yo'" "can u guys help me make monay?" (bad spelling/slang intact) the person next to me, he then starts talking to her like she was a hooker, which offended her. she also runs a small swapmeet or something, so he goes to that and then gets a stall from her area, then starts selling scripts. she takes a look at them, 100% are "no copy/mod/etc" and just had note cards or a texture in it and the rest is broken. he was selling freebie scripts for $1000L,$10,000L, etc.....

same people are born with no brains!

Alex, you are confusing what you CAN do with what you ALLOWED to do by law. They are not the same thing. It is an affliction of many gamers, I've noticed, that they seem to think that anything that is possible is ethical and legal, when it just ain't so.

Intellectual property belongs to its creator unless they specifically give you the right to use it. Making it transferable does not give you the right to sell it.

Well perhaps I am mistaken - but my belief is that they are selling a product .. and I am purchasing the product. Once I have purchased it (the object) ~ then it is mine to do with what I please ... provided I do not fiddle with the original permissions of the object..

For example, If i buy a sofa ... and then later decide to redecorate. Then it is perfectly in my rights (and ethical) to sell the sofa to someone else. As long as it is not an object that is set to copy AND allows transfer. I mean - we are not purchasing a license to wear the clothes or use the couch. The creator is selling the object itself ... and with that they are giving up control of it's future beyond the permissions they have set on the object when it is put out for sale.

Eh, I could be wrong .. wouldn't be the first time - BTW, do you feel this way about items in RL too?


edit to add: ok now i'm confused Barb - because i went back and read your post and saw that you said quote: It is considered fine to sell "used" goods, that is, to sell the only copy of a thing that you own (items with permissions set to transfer but not to copy.) /end quote ** I kinda think what I said was the same as that?**

Hi,

I own a small store in SL, primarily women's clothing with a smattering of other things that I make just because I can and want to occassionally.

I create things and sell them on the market for roughly 2-3 months at a cost of 59 L for a set. That set is copy/mod permissions. That means the person who buys a suit from me that is pale blue might darken it, or a pair of shoes might have a bling script added or the walk script removed.

After the 2-3 month period of "newness" wears off, and I have new items to upload, I move my own merchandise to my own resale shop. Everything then is full permissions. It is 10 L for the same set.

If you find jes`Teasing or jes`4`less items out in the world and they're placed/owned by anyone other than me, and they're priced for more than 10 L, then they're a rip off. You cannot resell my things till I'm ready for you to do so. Once full perms are offered, I don't mind if you copy, trade, share, help newbies out with wardrobe needs, duplicate, mass produce, or anything else. I accept that once it is out there for 10 L it is more a service to the masses then it is a business decision for my own needs.

I send Yadni a box of things that are for "free" as well, and intend to create a new box of retired goods. You might find that same box set up elsewhere for as much as 10 L. I think that location in this case matters because Yadni really is marketing 100% to the new SLers. Other places market to a wider population.

My box of many items says in the description, "Please do not resell these items if you received them for free." But to that extent, that's the only request I can make. The person who receives them has the option to choose to honor my request or not. I cannot control them and I do know what I'm doing when I turn new items to "clearance" items, and make them full permissions.

jes

Hi Alex,

The issue isn't quite as cut and dried as "I bought it, it's mine now, it's no copy/trans, I can sell it no matter what."

In your couch example, I agree with you. Got a no copy/trans item in your inventory you don't want or need anymore? Sure, selling it off seems perfectly fine to me.

An issue arises when someone wants to appoint themselves redistributer of another's products without telling them. It creates an implied association between the seller and redistributer that the seller may not want. Also, the reseller would be selling at a higher price and, therefore, ripping people off.

I have a new feature proposal that targets this case and others. I'm hoping by creating an original creator commission field into all objects that such cases as above can be eliminated.

/13/41/131506/1.html#post1241351

The whole concept of permissions is constantly repeated and rightly so until LL hears the calls.

The one permission many sellers seem to be asking for, is the ability to allow the new owner to give the item away but not sell it for a price. This is not beyond the wit of man to accmoplish and would certainly alleviate some of the problems. Perhaps as an alternative, a permission which only allows returning to creator would be of some help also. This would enable creators additional felxibility in refunds, alterations etc, without compromising the need to offer resell rights to the new owner if they offer these options.

The concept of 'rip off' is though, more sour graps than anything else.

In RL I can choose to go to one shop and buy an item for one price or go next door and pay more for it. That is exactly the same in SL. To call the higher priced item a rip off, is not really accurate.

As far as the ethics, well its confusing to say the least.

Lets say I go to a yard sale buy an item of clothing. I take it back home, try it and don't like it. I then go shopping and stumble across a shop selling the same item for more than I paid. Why should I not sell it myself for whatever price I deem fit. I bought it from a yard sale, why should my selling price be determined by the shop price, or even the yard sale price. The person selling may have really hated it and want to get rid of it at any price. Maybe I don't even see the original shop, but reckon I could sell it for more than I paid at the yard sale. Disregard the aspect of the yard sale, if I have permission to sell an item, why shouldn't I set my own price for it. How is that unethical? It is far more unethical for a creator to create a price monopoly on items they have given others permission to sell.

Reselling freebies...

There are some welll know freebie resellers who make a tidy profit from these items. Lets say I go to their store and pay a premium price for a freebie. I then decide I don't like the item and sell it at a similar price. Am I ripping someone off. Well I may be in some eyes, but if I didn't know it was originally a freebie and I paid for it, why wouldn't I offer it for sale?

Reselling freebies known to be free. It is a personal call. Many people may dislike the practice, but it happens, is it unethical? No I don't think it is. Does someone deserve to make a living from it, in my opinion, emphatically, no. Should other SLers try as much as possible to alert other SLers that these are free items if you only look around the grid, sure if they want to. Is selling your first land which you buy at L$512 for L$4000 unethical? Its a hefty margin, but unethical?

I can understand the frustrations of the content creator, I create items myself, particularly as at present there is not the option to offer items for permission to 'Give away' but not resell, or to return to creator only. However to throw heads in the air and scream it is unfair is to miss the reality of life. Pressure on LL to listen to content creators will hopefully provide a solution, it appears to have done so with Land Sales.

Once permissions are set to resell, then the buyer may just do that. If the permission are set to copy, the buyer may just do that. If they are set to both, the buyer may just do that too. The creator may claim all kinds of things like IP rights, unethical, rip off, but the simple fact is, permission to copy and resell is just that. Permission for the next owner to copy and resell.

The notecard that some sellers are putting into their items, requesting the seller honour their permissions systems in a specific way are a great idea to start the ball rolling about what the seller intends for the buyer to be able to do, but the fact is without LL helping creators, by listening to the calls for alternative permissions there is little that can be done to stop reselling of items at any price or multiple copies at any price, other than set the existing permissions accordingly.

In the same way that buyers need to be aware, so in SL the seller needs to aswell.

as far as law is concerned SL objects fall in the licensed software category, and not in the car/mixer/vaacum cleaner category

in theory if the owner do not specify his licensing you are free to do what you want

but even on a transferable object, if the license say you aren't allowed to transfer the license to someone else, then youa re supposed to abid to this rule

Until such time as someone takes a case to court, in my instance in the UK and for everybody their own relevant country, I would not put much faith in emphatic 'IN LAW' statements and even then each case will be looked at on merit.

The supposed EULA on many products in SL are only available once the item has been purchased. Now if I purchase a copy/resell item and decide I am not happy with the EULA, the seller is obliged to refund my payment. Bearing in mind I have copy permissions on the item, will the seller refund my payment?

A EULA that requires me to click a seperate notecard button, would not be appropriate.

How the law would work on this instance is unknown and will also depend on the jurisdiction of the owner and in which country they take the buyer to court.

Yes, there may be an argument which would indicate that in Law.... But there is also a counter argument that in law...

An expert in US Law probably knows nothing about Russian Law etc. so statements of it is the law are meaningless. Additionally do we need to develop permission systems that require a recourse to law, when there are solutions being proffered by SLers which will alleviate unknown outcomes of multi-juristiction laws. Does SL have to turn to an Lawyers money pit? Does speculation of legal remedies solve any of the issues?

The argument of EULA assumes that a the EULA writer knows what they are doing, is experienced enough in SL to know there may be problems and that they have the financial muscle and time to take someone to court should they wish to proceed with a court case.

It is to LL that we need to look for support in providing a way to resolve the permissions system not a court based in Ulan Bator or New York City.

Sorry, but reselling objects that were intended to be free is scummy, and unethical, and if they item was released under the terms certain licences intended to permit the free, non-comercial distribution of stuff, illegal as well.

It also prevents people from bothering to create good free items for distribution to those who may not have a lot of money, but deserve to have someithing nice. (Like noobies.)

A friend of my recently saw the need and created a very nice, low prim, (17) two story house for noobies, spending a fair amount of her own money to get decent textures to use to make it look good and to keep down the prim count. It's nice enough that she could have put it up for sale herself, but she wanted to do something nice for new people who wanted to have a nice place on a first land plot.

However, she had to offer the house as no-mod in order to put a comment in that it was a free item, and not intended for resale, thus reducing the utility of the house somewhat for the newbies it's intended for.

If, as you argue, it's okay for someone to come along and take the house that she made and resell it for their own gain, what happens to the motivation to create things like this for people, rather than just selling them herself?

SL needs one additional checkbox in addition to the copy/modify/resell ones. It needs one that allows an object to be transfered, but prohibits it from being sold for money.

Something like this would do a lot to encourage people to to produce free content for the good of the comunity, while knowing that some scumbag won't profit off of their charity as is the case now.

Jack, had you read all of my post you would have seen this is exactly the permission I agree with and think should be there.

The fact that your friend builds and sells houses offering them for free is commendable and to be greatly encouraged and supported by LL for those who wish to do it. The current system does not make that easy. It's not impossible. Permit copy and mod but no transfer and keep replacing items that have sold out. Hard work and tedious yes certainly, but under the curret system one way to acheive that objective.

I run some games in SL in which I offer bonus payments. In other words I am providing free money. Do I have the right to tell someone how to spend that money? Of course not.

As a content creator I offer some items as resell and copy, would I be suprised if they turned up cheaper elsewhere, of course not. If I gave them away for free, would I be suprised they were sold by other SLers, of course not. Neither would I think they were being unethical. I have elected to offer them as free, they are still available for free as long as I continue to distibute them, the fact that someone else is selling them is a by-product of the LL permissoins system. If I place a note in my item asking these not to be sold, then yes, I can agree with the ethics question, but per se it is unethical, no. As ever each case on its merits.

If you are selling widgets. It is unreasonable to expect that you can profit from secondary market effects. LL doesn't support you on this, ethics issues aside.

The reality is that Avi's get to decide for themselves what role they want to play. If they do things that are in scope of the "Laws" as LL has set them (Object Permissions, anti-griefing enforcement, etc.)

Rather than wasting your effort complaining about the current reality of the market, consider ways of profiting from it. I have already read some fairly reasonable strategies for making the most of the REALITIES of the market rather than from wishes.



Obviously if you are losing market-share for your widgets due to secondary market effects, you might want to consider changes to your business model to limit the effects.

Expecting other players to abide by your arbitrary interpretation of the LL rules is simply wasted effort. While you may get some support from your peers on gross ethics violations (ie selling freebies) the market is going to respond to these issues on it's own without your direct involvement. Other users are interpreting the rules as they see fit. The LL engine and the Lindens are the arbiter of what is allowed, not you!

If you have gone as far as to create a viable market for your widgets it's pretty clear you know what is possible and practical vs. what is just wishful....

We all have to play by the same rules here, and they are very liberal...., and very well delineated.

=B-)

Taking a freebie and reselling it is about as classy as selling food from a food bank, or freely-given donated clothing when you don't need cash.

Sure - it's legal - but it's a good way to be disliked, and a completely assholish thing to do.

I agree with you 100%.

It happens in RL, with the same social consequences. Add to that bored "rich kids" and retirees that dress-down and "Spange" when they clearly do not need to! Mooching is becoming a popular approach for some nOObs even in the face of other less demeaning methods of acquiring L$.... So what?!

These people don't care about their reputations, why should you? The market and social fabric (as tattered as it seemed to be here in SL at the moment) will address these issues without the collective bitching... All ya'll need to do is act in accordance with your own values in your DIRECT dealings with avies.

Buying products in a market where they are plentiful and cheap, then selling them in another market where they are scarce and dear is called commerce. It has been the foundation of merchantile civilization for thousands of years. "Selling at a higher price" is called "profit," not "ripping people off." Without a profit incentive, there would be no stream of middlemen to move product (such as the real clothes, food, fuel and computers you use everyday) from manufacturer to consumer.

Some say that calling capitalism "theft" is communism. I just call it naivite, and lack of economic education.

~ Frank ~

Actually, if memory serves, the TOS for use of SL state that the parties (you, me and him behind that tree) agree that the law of the State of California, USA govern the use of SL and the products/services within it.

To wit: "The rights and obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall not be governed by the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods; rather such rights and obligations shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California, including its Uniform Commercial Code, without reference to conflict of laws principles. " http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php

So, in matters relating to SL "in-world," California law governs, even in a foreign venue, as long as that venue applies basic principles of choice of laws and comity.

~ Frank ~

Frank

There may be some grounding in the TOS for sure. However there are items patented and with copy right created outside SL

So whilst in essence I can agree the TOS may have implication, there are issues in which the TOS can and will be overidden in a court and it is these issues which people are trying to address. As there is clearly no breach of TOS in reselling or rebranding any items with resell permissions.

Texture would be an example. The copy right may well be held by a British based individual the take down by LL may well be under dmca, the prosecution, if the offended party wished to pursue, need not be in California, regardless of the TOS.

You will also be aware that, contracts such as this can and are contested in locations outside the originating jurisdiction as different legal prictices and laws apply in different Countries.

As a simple example, internet gambling, the contract may well be based in for example Brazil, but if you break the law in your own country, this does not afford you protection and as a supplkier of service neither does your location of incorporation preclude you from prosecution from outside authorities.

Internet laws remain confusing and complex. Bald statements of fact are not helpful in any discussion and as I have stated, surely it is better to create permission systems which work in game rather than permission systems which need testing in law.