New L$ trading level low - L$317 / $1 USD.

A point on which I happen to agree with.

But I'm almost to the point where I'd endorse killing stipends in the hopes of getting you to quit repeating yourself.

And as for harshing on Jamie for selling freebies, I notice that no one responded to my earlier post... /108/b6/104682/7.html#post1035186

In fact, it seemed to kill the thread dead.

Either find an answer for that post or get off her back about selling freebies.

Responded. And if they killed stipends I'd only get louder. Look at my responses to the resmod program.

I was asking for an answer, not merely a response.

Find a way that makes the practice clearly WRONG, not just unethical, so that we can do something concrete about it rather than just helplessly wagging fingers of shame while she laughs at you.

Even bad publicity brings business, you're only helping her.

Unethical = wrong. What you want is a response about how the ToS can stop it. As I'm not a linden I can't give that. Jeust because something is legal doesn't make it right.

Ethics vary from culture to culture, which makes them slippery. SecondLife is incredibly diverse... expecting one set of ethics to be "universal" is your right as a human being, but reality is under no obligation to make it so.

Which is why we have law.

Like I said, I don't like the exploitive practice, in fact I railed against it quite loudly for a bit. I have, however, found that my argument had no solid foundation, and ethical or not, Jamie or whomever is legitimately empowered to resell freebies. The original creator DOES have an inherent right within copyright law to demand that freebie sellers STOP selling their creation, and they can make a case to LL if ignored.

If you are serious about getting her to stop, find the original creators and have them take action.

Really, I don't mind his constant harping. It only makes him look like a bore and de-sensitizes the entire forums to his points. I like to imagine him sitting around his parents basement flailing his arms about, going hysterical thinking that people actually read/care about his posts. Its all so many chickens.

Off to Starbucks again!!!

Actually, they don't. If you read the permissions on objects they are as follows:

1. Modify
2. Copy
3. RESELL / Give Away

So, if those boxes are checked and I come across it, I have EXPLICIT permission to do as I wish.

End of Story.

Goodnight.

And why do you think they need to keep undercutting Jonas? It's because supply exceeds demand, THAT is the reason. That is why people need to 'undercut' to get their Lindens sold rather than someone else's. It's not wrecking the system, that is the system! That is a market in action, determining the price according to the laws of supply and demand.

I wouldn't waste any more time trying to explain things to Jonas. Its like trying to teach dancing to so many chickens.

Then there is -nothing- broken and -nothing- needs to be done to bring up the value of the linden. As I have said before, if the sellers don't like an open market, take it away! Sell at a prescribed rate -only.-

*hugs* I seriously envy how simple the world must seem to you.

I CAN demand that you cease selling something I've created. You CAN ignore me if you like... and then it becomes a matter of whether or not I can persuade the Lindens to remove either the items or the transfer bits on the items in your possession that happen to have MY name in the creator field.

Of course, I might have to wait 35 years to exercise the legal right that the copyright system grants me if there is evidence that I deliberately made it a public domain work instead of a restricted use collaborative copy that was put into the public domain without authorization.

--

Although there is support in the statutes for allowing work to be dedicated to the public domain, there cannot be an unlimited right to dedicate work to the public domain because of a quirk of U.S. copyright law which grants the author of a work the right to cancel "the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright" thirty-five years later, unless the work was originally a work for hire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

--

Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

(permission bits aren't an agreement.)
--

Wow... that was interesting but all very confusing ????

Thank you for posting it though

Removing stipends for premium members is removing something we paid for. It is like paying for a expensive iteam and recieving a cheaper one instead.

I paid for the entire package and want everthing that was paid for and nothing more. How would you like to go to Mcdonnels and order and pay for a Big Mac set and get a plain hamberger instead?

Gaijin Blather..........We are not all residents of the United States.

I know. I'm sorry. There's really nothing I can do about that. But I'm sure other countries are ok, too.

It's unethical and damaging to the economy. In a society where the law can't be changed to outlaw what people find unacceptable the only recourse is spreading the word about them and not doing anything to send money their way. You may get it that Jamie steals from content creators but Joe Newbie might be seeing it for the first time. The ironic thing is Jonas also steals from content creators. And I would actually consider him the worse theif. Jamie steals idea's and work the content creators didn't intend to profit from. Jonas steals ideas content creators intend to profit from.

Call me the Great Value brand! Didn't know making ALTERNATIVE items was theft. Person A makes a chair. Person B makes a similair chair but sells for less.

Thats what I'm doing

You've admitted you get your ideas from other creators and you "copy" their items. Enough said. Theft of "ideas".

Walmart copies ideas too, and builds a similiar chair to other brands. Similiar scents to perfumes and candles. Thats EXACTLY what I'm doing. Or is half of american business 'theft?'

Those who can innovate do. Those who can't innovate, duplicate. I guess there's nothing perticularly ILLEGAL about being a bottom feeder and profiting from the hard work and innovation of others, so I wouldn't compare it to theft. It's not something that I'd brag about though, if it were me. Your mileage may vary on this.

Believe it or not I do do original work too.

I've got one set coming out after the update ( I hope). I had it running with hardware lighting but with the new system..don't know.

Edit: I do actually do it all from scratch and eye, not even looking at numbers even if they are modify enabled. My 'cheap' set of chairs and tables are an early example of this.

I am currently TPing to your picks and looking for a store owned by you. I will check out your products.

Jonas I have to say you lost the high moral ground on this one when it came out you also sell a hot tub based on Siggy's. With a product like that, I feel the scripts pretty much are the product (and were intended for free use)... making a new structure to put them in is not that far removed from someone re-texturing it, to my mind. A few cylinders and it's done. And now it comes out you copy stuff. At this point, I'd be backing off Jamie and start working on being original yourself. Creators of original stuff loathe being copied. Sorry to put it straight, but that's how I see it.

Yeah, um, isn't this what competition and marketing all about? You make something, someone else makes a generic brand, so you have to make your original better. Otherwise you'll have a Microsoft economy, where everyone owns a monopoly on everything they invented, so certain people whould have copyrights on chairs, certain people would have copyrights on certain furniture, etc. Personally, I think generic brands sold for cheap only spur the economy and creativeness. It also prevents people from charging way too much for stuff that shouldn't be worth as much.

S'okay. Someday you'll be able to use all that profit you've made off other people's creations to pay a lawyer to explain it to you when and if it becomes necessary.