Stealing or not?

I have a question i was asked that i honestly do not know the answer to . A newbie asked me that say you buy a prefab, furniture or what ever and you like its layout for the most part, and its modable, but you make a few changes to the actual structure of things and texture it totaly different is that consider theft of that item? I told them i honestly did not know the answer to that but id find out. so any info you all can give me will be great and ill also direct him to this forum. thank you all in advance for you input and answers on this have a awsome day


sincerly cheri

Personally, if someone did that to one of my own builds, but it was entirely for personal use (ie not reselling, and not renting out such builds), I'd be ok with it.

It's only theft if you try to sell it.

If an item has been provided with MOD rights, then the creator is knowingly giving you the right to make whatever changes you want for your own use. Usually, however, an object that can be modified is also marked NO TRANSFER, to prevent someone making a few changes then selling the object as their own.

If they have made changes to the item, then how do they think they were stealing? I make modifications to items all the time, I bought the item from the creator, and they are listed as the creator. If I were to then sell the item, yes, I would be steeling from them. If they were smart they would not allow me to transfer it, or resell it.

This spurs a question;
I picked up a freebie house that just fits a 512 plot one way round. I'd been trying to get a neighbouring plot so as to turn 90 degrees to face the setting sun but have instead compromised and shortened the house to fit at 90 deg.
The house as in inventory is C/T/M I'm certain as I get multiple copies and have changed things. However, when I try to link the parts again it says I don't have edit rights. Also, if I try to copy as a new version, the same appears. Not in-world at moment but anyone any ideas?
I stress I have no intention of selling my version.

There are probably parts of the house that is no mod. A door, a window, nail.. something? Usually if it's just too many parts or too far from link point, it just tells you that.

Thanks Raudf, shall investigate further

You are likely selecting somethging along with the house that does not belong to you.

Under the Tools menu, select the Select Only My Objects option (worded close to that), and select your house again. You should now be able to move/link/copy etc.

Remember to go back and disable the Select Only My Objects option, since it stays on unless you disable it.

-2fast

thanks 2-fast .. duly noted

I think most house builders understand that owners will want to modify thier houses and should have the right to do so. I have been disappointed in a few poorly textured jobs I have seen on some of mine, but still respected the Owners right to do so.

It is not theft, it is a right specifically granted to the buyer by the seller.

Mod/Copy/No Transfer is a good option for houses because it allows the owner tomake modifications, and if they screw it up too bad, they can easily deleted it and rezz a new copy.

My one question about the Copy permission is that a land owner could make multiple copies of the building for rental properties. Depending on how much land they own and rent out, that could be a LOT of copies.

How likely is that? Does it really matter?

Doesnt matter to me.

My builds are copy /mod /no transfer & all scripts used in the house are no mod / copy / no transfer. I would honestly prefer my more elaborate builds to be mod /no copy/ transfer on the prims only, but cant seem to find a rezzer that works well.

How likely is it to happen?
I've seen my builds setup in a "Truman Show" type neighborhood. The owner of copies was the one that purchased it so i was ok with it. He cant transfer them.

My houses are mod/copy/no transfer. People can make any changes they want to; that's the idea. No theft about it whatsoever.

Always having a copy of it means if you goof one up to much with changes, you can pull out the original and start all over.

And if they want to populate a whole neighborhood with one of my houses, that is fine, too. (It would be a compliment!) I've noticed that people who do rentals will often put out more than one.

If someone puts mod/copy AND transfer on their things - well, that's not a good idea.

coco

I would say No, as the creator DID provide you with the rights to Modify the Object. That is done with the Understanding that you May need or want to adapt the Object to your own Tastes. If the owner has made it "Copy/Mod/No Transfer" then you can assume rights to Change it as you Need, but the Creator wants to be the Sole person distributing it. If they Instead made it "No Copy/Mod/ Transfer" then you can Change it, and give it away, or sell it Just the Once. If "Copy/Mod/Transfer" then the Owner probably isn't that concerned about what you do with it once you own it.

Note to owners:
PAY ATTENTION to the rights you Grant a Purchaser of your Items and MAKE SURE they reflect your true desires for use, and distribution of your Items. Don't trust to Luck, or Hope that the Buyer is on the same wavelength You are.

Angel.

Nodding in agreement with most people.

I've seen "mods" to a couple of my houses I'd call outright vandalism, and it makes me cringe to think some flyer-by is going to right click creator and get my name. Ugh. But a modifiable house is modifiable. Turn it into a spaceship if you want- that's your right. It's certainly not theft.

I get customers who are landlords. Can't blame them- they can fill a region with rental houses for under a 1/4 the price of a 512m2, that's the way it is. They tend to come back now and then for some variety when I've done new houses so it's not like I lose out.

Mostly I think modifying something like a home- even if it is just a virtual one on a computer screen, is pretty important to be able to do. I like to encourage that, even through the headaches of "help I textured my whole house in wood panelling" or "I deleted a floor and now the menu doesn't work." Everyone learns by doing, and gets to create something their way.

I didn't post the original question about rights, but thanks to everyone who answered and fully explained the rationale behind the permissions choices. It was VERY useful for learning what rights are appropriate for the build that I've just finished.

Selling freebies (including those that you retextured) is theft in most peoples opinion.

Usually the only items you find that are copy/mod/transfer are freebies, so its not a good idea.

Scenario:

Object A is mod/copy enabled, transfer no. Object A is strictly a decorative item and is intended to remain that way.

Person X sold Object A to Person Y.

Person Y recreates Object A over several hours (think copybot but by hand rather than automagically). (refer to new object as Object B)

Person Y changes Object B to a different shape, different textures, adjusts some sizes, removes this prim, adds that prim (but same basic concept), and makes it a scripted and wearable Avatar. Person Y never sells Object B nor does Person Y give it away. Avatar Object B with no mod/no copy/ yes transfer perms is sold by Person Y.

Stealing?

A

Clarify, Person Y never sells the duplicate of Object A, just the scripted avatar.

The distinction between the object and the Avatar version is irrelevant: neither scenario is stealing.

If you create a new collection of prims from scratch, change their shapes, use different textures, then it's a NEW object. The concept of the new object may have been derived from someone else's, but general concepts are not protectected, just specific implementations of them. Derivatives that closely match the originals are (quite rightly) disparaged, but there is no action one can take other than disapproval.

As a writer, I just have to roll my eyes every time some wannabe screams "so-and-so stole my idea for a novel!!" even those they haven't written a single word of their own novel. Ideas are a dime a dozen, and there is no ownership of ideas. It's the execution that is owned, and unless someone steals your manuscript and uses your words, no crime has occurred.

Same principles apply to most artistic works. It's the specific execution that is protected, not the concept. Which is why you 12 million paintins of blue bonnet fields in Texas or doe-eyed children on black velvet.

RIght, Regan. With some small caveats that don't really matter much but here goes.

In RL, you can patent an idea. RL patents would apply in SL, but I doubt anyone would bother about it unless it's a big bucks item.

Concerning copyrights, if you write a song and record it, and someone else records their version of that song, they have to get your permission. But you're still right -- you had to actually write the song (and not just play it, but fix it in SOME medium, whether recording or written music). The usual rules for plagiarism apply to textual works like books.

The general rule about SL objects is, if you CAN do it, it's legal. With one main exception: You may not sell anything that has an open source license. (You can give it away.) Any such thing should be clearly marked as such, and it's illegal for you to remove such a mark.

Selling free things that just happen to be free, and aren't marked as open source -- that's legal. In most cases it's rude, but in some cases it might be considered reasonable. For example, if someone spends the time to collect an excellent set of freebies for some purpose, and sets a low price on each item to repay them for their care in collecting and presenting the material, I'd consider that reasonable. Assuming all open-source items are free.

Or, say someone really needs a widget, and you have one that would do perfectly, and it's free. Well, there's no law says you can't say "I'll sell you this freebie for L$10." Might just be a great deal to the person who wants it. No, the main abuse here is selling free stuff to newbies who don't know any better, and we should discourage that.

Actually, RL patents can't be applied in SL:

This does not mean that no patents are applicable in SL. I believe that it means that if you upload content that is patented, you allow others to use your content. In addition, if the object transfers or copies, the patent license applies to the transfer or copy. This is different than RL, where "copy" is not permitted. But if someone tries to recreate your object, it could be a patent violation. This is a very reasonable extension of RL intellectual property concepts to the different world of SL, where 'copy' is an inherent ability of any object with the appropriate permissions.

Not that I would bother trying to enforce -- there are a number of issues.

Also note that this applies only to content submitted. It has no bearing on patents in RL where the patent owner has not submitted content. (A little beside the point, of course.)

I'm not an attorney, btw. But the language is fairly clear, if read very carefully. Very carefully.

I would have to ask HOW close the Scripted remake is in appearance, and Function to the Original. If you set the two Potted Plants side by side on a Table. and looked at them would you see two Potted Plants, Two Models of the same Plant, or Two Copies of the same plant? If the differences are such that the product is Unrecognizable as having been made from the source, then i would say No, Not stealing. If it appears to be something from the Same Builders Line, One of a series, then i would say Yes, Stealing.
Example:
I have an Armchair,, wonderful Build. Mod/No copy/No Transfer. I Looked at it's construction, and made a replica with textures of my Own I did so for the SOLE purpose of expanding my Building skills. To qualify this, I have Purchased Twenty of the original Chairs from the Creator. when i use them i use ONLY her chairs. I have not added Poses to mine as hers have. I have ONE copy of mine, and One Only, and except for occasionally referencing it in other construction situations it is Unlikely to EVER see the Outside of my Inventory. It's simply TOO close to her work for me to even consider selling it, or Giving it away.
Second Example:
I knew a Person who created a Very unusual object who's construction was based upon a system Bug. I Loved the effect, and wished to Know How it was done. I had an idea or two for Decore of my Home. We spoke, and came to a "gentlemens agreement" He would teach me the secret of the Effect on condition that i did NOT create any objects similar to his at all, That i Not create and SELL ANY items using the effect For at least a Year, and then ONLY if it became appearant that the Secret had become Widely Known.
I agreed, and he showed me the Secret. and i Kept my Part of our agreement even after the year had past because though i have seen One, or Two items using the Effect, it has as yet NOT become so Common that everyone knows how to do it. To date i've shown the Effect to many people But i've told the secret of Making it to No one.

In neither of these cases have i made One linden in profit, Nor have i Attempted to make profit by those works. In Each case i've fulfilled my desire to learn, and perhaps Later apply PRINCIPLES of other peoples work, while Respecting thier OBVIOUS desire to be the Sole person Profiting by thier own work.

Angel.

Oh, as an aside.
I Know someone with Copybot now, I had them, for an experiment Copy one of my Stilletto Heel shoes. My shoes are Gorgeous, best money i have ever spent on Footwear. When he was Done, he got two Plywood Boxes, and a Plywood Torus and not Clue #1 on how to make them Look like, or behave like my shoes. It's a shoe,, Three Prims, But it's also a Few textures and texture tricks, a script orr two, and a Pose or two, NONE of which Copybot gave him. As far as i can see, Copybot can speed One aspect, the Prim Build, but beyond that, If the user is so Lazy they cannot do the prim work themselves, then all the Post-Prim work will likely be beyond thier skills also, and they will just end up with useless Junk.
I'm still not worried about it.

A.

I understand what you're saying, but there's also that second clause - even if someone does violate your patent, then according to the above, you can't do anything about it. This rather strongly suggests that their intention was to keep patents entirely out of SL.

I believe that one resident did in fact try to patent an object they made and use it to prevent competitors moving in, and I don't think it worked.

Ok, to clarify further: Say Object A is a Potted plant. Avatar Object B would be a potted plant with branches for arms, leaves for face, and a "hop" for a walk (pots are hard to make walk decently *grin*).

Object A is sized to fit on a dining room table and look pretty. Nothing moves, nothing changes about it.

Avatar Object B is 7' tall (or whatever the average av height is), has waving branches for arms, moves about independantly, has a mind of it's own, prims in different positions to hide the av legs, arms, neck, torso, etc, and has texturing cleverly done with some freebie textures available in SL.

If you set them side by side, you can see a resemblance, but it would be the same resemblance between a small bush outside your office window and one of the (insert animation studio of your choice here) live talking walking trees in the movie (insert kids movie here).

*BUT* a lot of the original design is incorporated into the new av. For instance, the pots are the same (only one is larger than the other) and the type of plant are the same (non flowering, green bushy thing). This incorporation includes perhaps as much as 40% of the original design (with slight size changes and the obvious texture changes).


BTW how'd you know I was working on a plant-human av?

A