It's supposed to be free damnit!!

Is it really so difficult for you to believe that some people here simply do not agree with you on this issue?

*I* don't feel particularly benefitted by the suggestions put forth so far. I am also not a freebie seller, nor do I support any. Well, except Yadni, maybe, but I hardly think that $1 for a BOX of freebies by various authors is a significant enough violation to worry about. Plus, I think he has the permission of most if not all of those he distributes freebies for anyway.

Nothing put forth so far will have any significant impact on freebie sellers. The only impact it will have is on people who display it, very few of which bother to turn off the "Allow anyone to copy" or "for sale for L$0" settings anyway. I can see validity in both sides of that argument, though. I just don't see it as being that big a deal.



I have yet to see anyone say anything remotely resembling "Hey dude!, freebie sellers need to eat too!", so your hyperbole is a tad misplaced.

Copyright violation!!!

Just kidding...

I will answer the question, even though you didn't. No, I don't and I never said I did.

You are the one who dismissed the opinions of others, saying the dissenters were opposing you just for the sake of being contrary. I simply pointed out that most of us are opposing you because we genuinely do not agree with you.

If you can't deal with people not agreeing with you, posting your ideas on a forum is probably a bad idea.

seems like this one died on the vine:

/139/18/117737/1.html

Ah, I have no problems with people disagreeing with me. Especially when I can usually see both sides of the argument. But in this case I'm struggling. Nobody has really put forward anything that has explained why Linden Lab seem to be in favor of allowing owners to freely change the 'Allow anybody to copy' settiing.


But that's fine. I shall just destroy you all later.




* Composes my hit list *

Conan
Talarus
Ava
Linden Lab

and anybody else that dares to freaking disagree with me!!! YOu bASTARDS!!

/me sighs

Do you want to have sex now?

Did you notice that you're first on my list!!?

Thanks for digging it up!

I judge that confirmation of a resounding success

Why not make it such that the creator gets to decide if the "allow anybody to copy" permission can be changed by the owner for objects with Modify disabled? This would add a choice to the existing set, giving creators and subsequent owners new choices. It would take the wind out of the "you are making something mandatory" objections your suggestion faces while still giving you the ability to set permissions the way you want.

Ummm...no it wouldn't. That would leave our objections very much intact and leaves us right back at square one.

Uhh. The same reason they didn't go down the road of an arms race escalation against CopyBot. It's technically infeasible and the effort is better spent on battles they can win that have significant impact on the majority of their customer base.



Good luck; you'll need all you can get.

I guess I get sloppy seconds?

Not at all. Not in the least.

No permissions on any existing objects would be changed, so there's no objection there.

Newly created objects could be made with permissions working just as they do now, or they could be made with a different permission set. Prospective owners take the objects they want, and don't take the objects they don't want. Everyone's freedom to choose is increased. No one's freedom to choose is reduced. No one has to make an object with a permission set they don't want, and no one has to take an object with a permission set they don't want.

Those who want to sell objects they didn't make, and probably couldn't make because they lack the creativity, skill, and patience required to make things others would find worth paying for, might not enjoy the presence of objects that are well made and permanently free and easy to copy any time you see one, because it might reduce the amount of their unearned income, but too bad. They didn't earn the income they are afraid of loosing,

SuzanneC, I think you misunderstand our objections in that case. Our objections, most of us anyway, are to the very principle of an objects creator forcing users of a product to make it available for copying - so yes, your suggestion does nothing to counter our objections. Stopping people copying I've got no objection to, but making them allow it is another kettle of fish entirely.

There is no forcing!.

Stop forcing me to post "There is no forcing"!.

So people who use your objects would have a choice to whether to have "Allow anyone to copy" on or off?

I'd be happy with that

Lemon banana in flying sheep sitting upside down overall under the golden top stand, potato?


Yeah, thought so!

I win!

u suck!

At the time the creator sets the permissions they are the owner of the object. They would be setting the copiability property of an object they own, the same as they set the size, texture, rotation, and other properties of an object they own. If you don't like something about a free object, be it the color or shape or copiability, don't take a copy of the object. No one is being forced to make anything they own available for copy, they can choose to not own the object, just the same as making a red object and offering it for free is not forcing people to have red objects. If you don't like a free object, don't take it. There is no forcing or mandating anyone to distribute anything involved.

The "principle" that people don't want to own up to is the principle of being able to sell things they get for free because they want unearned income of the skills off and against the wishes of those who have the talent to create things and want to give them away.

Yes, of course, everyone who doesn't agree with your stance is automatically a devil-worshiping, baby-eating, freebie-selling hippie who has zero creativity and a desire to maximize profits at the expense of the freedom-loving content creators.

Wow. I just love that gross generalization paint you're using on that brush. Where can I get some?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I support things like the First Sale doctrine, and enjoy the fact that LL has chosen to balance the rights of content producers with those of content consumers. I mean, in the end, this smacks so much of RIAA's and MPAA's desire to cram DRM down everyone's throat so far we choke, it isn't even funny. They want these types of controls, too. They want to dictate when, where, how, and even why you consume their media, oft times in direct contradiction to established law.

I also am sorry to disappoint you that I don't sell freebies, nor have any desire to. I also am a fellow content creator (if you'd stop smacking me for a moment, you might realize that), and I give away freebies as well. I don't worry that someone might end up selling them. More power to them! It won't stop me from giving them away, nor will it change how I think about them for doing it. If I WAS worried about it, I would make them no-transfer, and that would be the end of the issue, as far as I am concerned.

In the end, I have what I consider are very valid reasons for resisting your suggestions, and you obviously feel just as strongly on the counter side. That's fine. The difference is I don't call you names or disparage your character in the process of acknowledging that fact.

What are your reasons for not allowing a new permission set to exist? How would giving object creators a new, additional choice of how to set permissions on objects they own interfere with you?

Incidentally, I wasn't talking to or about you. You aren't the one that wants to sell freebies and sounds like a broken record doing a bad job of playing the role of super-libertarian all the time but wants to deny creators certain choices of how to make their objects and deny others the right to engage in peaceful, honest, mutually voluntary transactions with those creators.

One can make an argument that making such a change is not the best use of resources, but that is not an argument that deals specifically with the intrinsic merits of the issue at hand, but only with value of the proposed change versus other possible changes that could be accomplished with those resources. One could say, don't get LL to work on the code except as absolutely needed, because they tend to break things a lot. That might be a valid point, but again does not address the principle under discussion, that a creator might want to make things that are permanently copiable for free by "taking a copy", and whether that desire should be implemented in code.

Again, what are your reasons for not allowing a new permission set to exist? How would giving object creators a new, additional choice of how to set permissions on objects they own interfere with you?

Come on Suez, let's go play with the other kids. These kids are just borrrring!

I think I have quite adequately enumerated my reasons here. I don't see any point in repeating what you already fail to acknowledge.



That's the trouble when you use gross generalizations. You aren't talking about anybody in particular; you're talking about everybody in a given class (in this case, the ones who don't agree with you). Hence, you're likely to incite those you "incidentally" weren't talking to or about.

Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has said a single word that shows how giving creators a new, additional option on how to set permissions on objects that they own would interfere with other's ability to do what they want with that which is theirs.

No one can , because it wouldn't.

I think it'd be a very valuable option, especially for those who want to use freebies for a viral marketing campaign, and I agree the permissions system would benefit alot from added functionality or change, but I'll bet alot of people are just reluctant about such things being tacked onto for fear of stuff being broken. Personally, I want to lean toward the idea of change instead of just adding functionality--I get the feeling a different kind of change to the permissions system that would encompass this functionality while also covering lots of other needs may be possible.