It's supposed to be free damnit!!

Would that be such a bad thing?.

...and they don't HAVE to use my object.

No, they don't; and thankfully, they don't have to allow others to copy it when they do choose to use it

The plain facts here are that you clearly want your objects passed along so you can get some free advertising. I'll happily use a product that is useful to me, but I'll be damned if I'll be someone's walking advert - that's why I cut the labels off my jeans in real life.

Life is too short to waste it trying to break through a brick wall by banging your head against it, particularly if the wall you are working on is exceptionally thick and incredibly dense.

Yes, and that's what I'm puzzled about and why I started this thread. Only freebie sellers are benefiting right now.

Okay, the creator may be benefiting in some ways too. But that's not really a bad thing. Would you rather I sell my items?. Would that make you feel a little better?

But I'm sorry I can't take my name of the items for you. Perhaps you can add a Jira request for a pair of virtual scissors?.

Conan isn't that bad.

Do you also carry around a roll of duct tape to wrap your can of soda so you don't accidently become a walking/driving/sitting billboard?

I thought SuzanneC was talking about herself.....I guess I must have mis-understood being so dense and all.

/me wanders off to find his brain medicine.

Not really necessary since drinks are generally served in a glass in the more civilized establishments I usually frequent.

Drink out of a can while in public view? That's just common. Next you'll be telling me people eat while walking along the street!!

Oh get back here! I was just kidding!.

You're a wise one really. I know you was just trying to put forward the other side of the argument, and you made some good points.


Besides, I'm sure Suez was talking about LL.

True genius is never recognised in it's own time.....except for Confucius.

And Dali.

And Shakespeare.


Alright, so true genius is usually recognised in it's own time.

How on earth do you make this leap?

Allowing object owners to enable modify would give them more power over the object than the creator wanted. Allowing them to turn off 'allow anyone to copy' goes in the opposite direction, and makes the object less vesatile.

since someone else brought up the RIAA, a music analogy comes to mind. Say an indie band makes a CD and gives it away with the request that people make copies and distribute it far and wide. I decide I don't want to do that, so I don't copy it. By your logic, that must mean I also want the power to re-write the songs.

You're way ahead of your time. I'm not understanding your post at all.


Conan, will you translate for me?.

2K was making a wise-ass response to my post above it

It's okay, we've moved on since then

Thanks!

I'll have to play around with this when I get in world later on; what I have here is probably buggy. What this script does is warn the purchaser they have bought a freebie item. Unfortunately, there's no real way to block this BEFORE money changes hands *sigh*.

Its also possible with some more tweaking to toss in an IM to the previous owner, so a freebie reseller would end up with their offline IM's capped. I'm not mean enough to add that, though.

What it does (if it works as advertised) is tell the owner they just bought a freebie if the item has been renamed or it is set as nocopy.

The freebie reseller might be able to delete this even if the object is set nomod - this will require some testing to prove out.

string trueName = "Soen Eber's supercool gizmo";

default {
state_entry() {
}

changed(integer change) {
if (change & CHANGED_OWNER) {
if (llGetObjectName != trueName) {
llOwnerSay("You have payed for a freebie that has been renamed from " + trueName + ", please stop by my shop for the real item. This object will derez to deter resale and to protect you from any potential malicious content.";
llDie();
}
integer perms = llGetObjectPermMask(MASK_EVERYONE);
if ((perms & PERM_COPY) != PERM_COPY) {
llOwnerSay("You have just been ripped off and paid for a freebie. Please stop by my shop for the real item. This object will derez to deter resale and to protect you from any potential malicious content.";
}
}
}
}

Surely if you make something No Modify, the next owner can't change the name of it. That's right isn't it - I never can.

So the answer is simple - just name the object "<Objects Name> - Freebie, do not re sell". Prospective purchasers will then know they are buying a freebie - even when it is in a box, since contents of the box is always displayed before you pay for it.

Seems much simpler than using a script.

Yeah, Soen. The evil freebie sellers will be able to delete it


But hey!, thanks for fighting the good fight!!

Howard Roark, maverick designer, wants to be able to distribute some of his designs in Second Life with "Free to Copy" set permanently on, and presents a case for adding a choice to the way creators can set permissions on objects in Second Life. Adding this choice for object creators gives the rest of Second Life users a new permission set to choose from when they consider what digital goods to acquire.

Second hander Peter Keating wants to sell designs by creative people like Roark, and not wanting to admit this, and lacking any credible decoy arguments, tries to wear Roark out by saying things that don't make any sense over and over and over, things that sound a lot like a Markov chain text generator using just a few sentences of libertarian propaganda as it's input text.

I know the Lindens have many ablities and powers over items in the inventory and our world in ways no open sourcer really has access too.
I uploaded something way back it was texture from the main website of clothing
When I uploaded item it should have said it was mine as texture and creator within the system as it usually is but no it changed and so did the permissions its non-transferrable and created by a Linden.
I wish we had that ablity to control our objects and textures on the grid.

Howard Roark, maverick designer, wants to be able to distribute some of his designs in Second Life with "Free to Copy" set permanently on, and presents a case for adding a choice to the way creators can set permissions on objects in Second Life. Adding this choice for object creators gives the rest of Second Life users a new permission set to choose from when they consider what digital goods to acquire.

Second hander Peter Keating wants to sell designs by creative people like Roark, and not wanting to admit this, and lacking any credible decoy arguments, tries to wear Roark out by saying things that don't make any sense over and over and over, things that sound a lot like a Markov chain text generator using just a few sentences of libertarian propaganda as it's input text.

I suppose some people do actually look at it like that, Suzanne.

Back in the day, I used to go to COMDEX, and you could get lots of freebies there. I knew people who would also sell the nicer freebies they received. Freebies are still property, and when they change hands, the possessor retains the right to sell them, destroy them, give them away to someone else, etc.

It's a little different in SL, since you can make and distribute infinite copies yourself, but SL also already has a permission to control that: no-transfer. If you don't want your freebies sold, make them no-transfer. Anyone can then get them from any of your authorized outlets for free, and no one can resell them.

I realize it doesn't work well for certain types of things, like freebie textures meant to be incorporated into other objects for sale.

I don't think it is technically feasible to make that kind of permission stick. You'd have to make it where it couldn't be put into another prim/object, because you could stuff it in a prim, put it into a vendor, and still sell it. You can still have people who show off a freebie to someone and offer to sell it to them through manual exchange as well.

I think the best bet is to just use no-transfer where you can, and/or write it off to human nature otherwise.

That is not an immutable law that applies everywhere, in any context. It does not have to be true for objects in Second Life. The properties of objects in Second Life aren't determined in the same manner as the properties of objects at Comdex. The allowable permissions on objects in Second Life can be changed by Linden Lab. Change some code, and the possessor may or may not be able to sell the object, as determined by the object's creator.

You are right, though, some people would put the objects in boxes and sell the boxes, but if they do, when the new owner rezzes the object, the newly rezzed object would be another source for the object available inworld for anyone to obtain instantly upon seeing it, without requiring the creator to maintain a distribution system.

So, with the "permanently copiable" option set, if, say, just to pick a random example, Starax made a nice statue, and set it out in the world as permanently copiable, every instance of the object would be immediately copiable, instead of having been rendered uncopiable by someone other than the creator.

If someone shows someone an instance of an object and tries to sell it to them they will not sell too many of them if the object can be right clicked and a copy taken for free. That this is possible is not an argument for not allowing creators the option to make their objects permanently copiable.

It's cool what the op is doing,

With this said, I think once you put out what you want to give out thru' copy, you shouldn't worry about what others do. You still have your copy out there for others to use so don't worry.

Just like people who make things to sell, once you sell it and get the money you're asking for, it's not your business whats done with that items. Although, many of these creators think they should have some type of link to their items, you don't.

Just make the item no modify, and put in the description that it can be obtained free from your shop.
That serves as good advertising as people will come to your shop to get their copy if the owner made it no copy. It also makes people less likely to try to sell your freebie since people buying it will know.

Suggestion, make your giveaway freebie no mod, and include the word freebie in the object's name, wont stop people from sticking it in a box and selling it but at least it will be very clear they are selling freebies, if a buyer checks the contents first the freebie in the name might be noticed too. Could save some one a few Ls. When the contents of a box are editted the description doesnt show but the object name does.