No Transfer/Copy/Mod/Sell work-around

Hi all

I have some stuff in my inv that I bought but don't really like, is there any way of editing the preferences to enable me to sell it on..?

The preferences have the Mod/Copy/Sell etc grayed out.

TIA
Tabi

You cannot get around these restrictions. They are there to prevent just that: Selling it on.

These items were bought second hand, so was wondering how the previous owner managed to get round the restrictions to sell them onto me..?

TIA
Tabi

Most likely the seller did set those setting him/her self to prevent it would be sold again.

If not, it would be getting around the game mechanisms... and that means an exploit. So not allowed and most likely a reason for banning.

Morwen.

If that's the case, more than likely the person that sold them to you put even more restrictive permissions on the item before they sold them to you.

You can make permissions more restrictive on objects you own, but not less restrictive once they're transferred to the next owner.

Ohh cheers for that. Guess the only way is to delete them, seems daft but its either that or have them clutter up my inv.

Thanks for the replies.

Tabi

i'm not sure if i'm remembering correctly, so someone may need to clarify; however, i believe you could just give unwanted items away to someone else.

you won't get any money, but you'll be clearing your inventory a bit and making someone else smile at the same time.

i don't thinks so
in that case, you could just secretly exchange them for money.
i give you the item, you give me money. there is no way to police that
technically, all money transfers and item transfers are "gifts" anyway

no transfer means no transfer.

I cant even give them away as there is a NO TRANSFER option on.

All sections in the properties are grayed out.



Tabi

You can only give unwanted items away if they have transfer permissions.

If the item is marked (no transfer) then you can not transfer it.


That kind of stinks when you have items you paid for and have no need of them anymore.

By default, you aren't supposed to be able to have a No Copy/No Mod/No Transfer object. You should, by right, be able to do either Copy or Transfer the object.

The way people have been making No Copy/No Modify/No Transfer is by adding restrictive items in the objects Contents.

If the object itsel if No Copy/No Modify/Yes Transfer, and the previous owner added a No Transfer object to the Contents, the entire object becomes No Copy/No Modify/No Transfer do to rights escalation design.

Look at the Contents of the object. You may be able to remove a No Transfer object there to restore Transfer rights.

Rez the items(s) in question and see if the permissions that are show while in your inventory are the actual in-woprld permissions. You will find, sometimes, and without explaining too in-depth, that the permissions when rezzed are different.

If they are in fact non-transferable, you ahve two choices, keep it or delete it.

It seems there are many things you can do in real life you can't do in SL and likewise in reverse!

Seems strange that in real life, when we buy something, we gain its ownership and use thereof. Should we decide that it is of no longer any use, we have a choice, throw it into some land fill, or 'recycle' through various avenues. I think the short term it is called 'Freedom of Choice'!
The irony is that with so many newcomers to SL lacking any form of income other than the pocket money issued, that they would be forced to seek out many kind hearts that allow their goods to be transferred by free will, or those other kind hearts who donate their creations free!

If I wish to purchase a gift for someone in real life, I don't have to pay for it and have the shop keeper deliver it personally (when they are 'ingame') so why has this function even evolved in the first place?

Does someone make a fortune selling 'gift' certificates?? Speaking of which, its very rare that shop owners create Gift certificates that in any shape of form equate to the permutations of value, of the goods sold, meaning yet another inconvience of behalf of the seller to give change.

AWM, you are right.

But you also cannot just go, "Oh, crap I need two of those." and pull another one out of your pocket. You can't, when finished with something, give it away, while keeping a copy for yourself.

The pros and cons of No Copy vs. No Trans have been gone over again and again on this forum.

Why rehash?

Now that the client source code is released we can peer a little deeper in to the permissions issue. It seems there is a notion of fair use built in to the client, and one of the fair use clauses allows you to always transfer (but maybe not sell) an object that you only have one copy of.

llpermissions.h:

// It is considered a fair use right to move or delete any object you
// own.  Another fair use right is the ability to give away anything
// which you cannot copy. One way to look at that is that if you have
// a unique item, you can always give that one copy you have to
// someone else.

...

// Correct for fair use - you can never take away the right to
// move stuff you own, and you can never take away the right to
// transfer something you cannot otherwise copy.
void fixFairUse();

Maybe because the problem hasn't gone away and is still a sore point?

I dont actually remember saying, allowing the copy function, but specifically the 'no trans' function i.e. the right of the owner of the goods purchased to have the ability of 'gifting' something no longer required to another that can make use of it.

AWM, it's not a problem, it's inevitable. Look, I make prim boots, which people need to be able to modify, so they can adjust the size and fit to suit themselves. This can be quite difficult if you're inexperienced, especially if the boots are complicated. I therefore like to make them copiable, so that you can keep a backup of the originals (and play around with the style and colour if you want). This means that I can't afford to make them transfer, otherwise anyone could sell or give away copies. If I make them transfer (so you can give them as presents) I have to make them no-copy. That means that if people have problems and damage the boots, they can't just delete and start again with the backup. Then I get all sorts of issues with exchanging damaged boots. I wish I knew which the majority of customers would prefer. I've considered offering both as an option.

It would be nice if there were a setting so that a customer could do a single transfer which would automatically "swap" the rights, i.e. switch transfer to no-transfer and switch no-copy to copy. Then you could buy them as a gift (and we all like receiving gifts don't we?) and they'd still be useable to the recipient.

Hey Suzi, what an excellent idea! Toggle C/NT to NC/T!!!!!
Could that be handled by the Client or would that be an Asset Server issue?
Hands up, who's in favour?!
Is there a fundamental reason why creators would object to this?

Quite a few designers in SL offer variations on their wares from no perms to the copy/trans variations at different prices. Shouldn't be to difficult to implement as its a choice whether to check this box or that. Somebody will no doubt reply, yeah that gonna increase vending space blah blah, maybe there is a script that would change the properties of the goods before dispencing?

Because someone could buy one of something C/NT, make 10,000 copies while it's copiable, switch them all to NC/T, and then set up shop with one hell of an inventory.

AWM, the problem with copy/trans items is that there's nothing stopping someone from limitlessly revending what you're vending.

Some people do have a moral objection to selling 'copies' where no inventory is at stake, but the analogues to RL can be reduced to absurdity on that. (i.e., a piece of electronic equipment that sells for $400 RL may be limited in quantity, but it costs the company only $10 to 'make copies' on an assembly line... where's the line of "negligible versus non-existent" on inventory costs?)

Honestly, from my perspective, at least with our products, inventory is not unlimited. Items last a finite amount of time until they have to be redesigned and updated. (Something we've done repeatedly - and old purchasers get the upgrades for free.) In that, you can only sell a certain amount of an item before saturation is reached and there's no demand for it anymore.

I don't think many, if any content creators would be opposed to some sort of 'first sale doctrine', but I dont know how enforceable that'd be through the permissions system. It'd take some complexity. (In other words, if you're done with an item and you do "switch it to NC/T", it applies to all copies you've made in your inventory as well. If you sell one on, the rest go too. As far as I know, the database is simply not structured that way.) Also, because things in SL do not 'wear down with use', other factors such as obsolesence would have to factor into the price.

But it'd be a non-starter with most content creators if, when they release something, an hour later someone in the next sim is vending it (at unlimited quantity) for 1/10th of the price after buying one of them. Or, for sheer griefing reasons, just giving them out for free.

"Digital" economics are certainly not going to be solved in this single thread, it's been a question for a while now. Fair use is important, (which is why we give all of our customers copy/mod rights) - but as long as Linden is charging for tier, land, sims, etc - there's no way that we can have a truly "free" society in SL. (Of course, other arguments apply to the feasibility of that, as well.)

Less than economics though, I'm concerned with accreditation and authorship. Someone hijacking your business sucks, but someone claiming ownership and creatorship of your work sucks much, much more. Running a business, even in SL, you have standards of customer service, quality, and community interaction. Nothing can undermine that quicker than someone pretending to be your business and distributing your goods claiming that they're the creator.

There are a lot of tough questions -- ones that LL obviously did begin to think of in the permissions system early on, likely not expecting the economy and world to grow quite as much as it did. We've spoken of retrofits for a long time now, but the complexity is daunting.

Just remember that this world is 'in development' and nothing's a final answer. There are concerns on both sides of the 'fence' that are going to take a while to work out.

QUOTE: "I dont actually remember saying, allowing the copy function, but specifically the 'no trans' function i.e. the right of the owner of the goods purchased to have the ability of 'gifting' something no longer required to another that can make use of it."

Do people actually read posts before launching into a short novel of reply? I was specifically refering to the NO TRANS function.....

I did read it, and the fact that you were not saying anything about copy shows that you don't understand how the permission system currently operates.

Augmentation or pre-existence of copy rights is implied. The two are tied together. You cannot talk about one without addressing the other. You cannot make items nocopy/notrans. It's either copy/trans, nocopy/trans, or copy/notrans.

If you receive something copy/notransfer, someone could make 100+ copies of it before "converting" it to a "giftable" permission. There is no function, nor can there be a function currently, that keeps someone from duplicating before deciding to give away, due to the way the system is designed. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

The reply was to the topic in general, beginning with addressing what you said. Overall, the situation is much more complex than simply allowing people to switch an item to transfer. Because they are going to receive them as either copy-OK without transfer, or transfer-OK without copy. (Or fully open permissions to begin with - such objects obviously do not apply to this discussion.)

Allowing to switch transfer OK on a copy OK item (implying that it MUST have been copy-OK before since it was transfer-NOT-OK) gets into the problems that I mentioned. Allowing Copy OK on a transfer OK item (implying that it MUST have been transfer-OK before, since it was copy-NOT-OK) leads to same thing. Unlimited reproduction and "re-gifting". All you'd have to do is decide to make a bunch of copies before you decide you 'dont want the hundred copies you made anymore'.

You seem to be confused as to how the system currently works, or are not seeing the bigger picture. It would be a monumental task for SL to allow gifting of items, while still protecting creator rights, while still protecting current fair use provisions.

There have been proposals, and ideas, but because of the size of the task, it hasn't happened yet.

Hi,

I have gotten items before that are NO COPY NO TRANS , how is this actually possible as i tried this on a object i made myself and its either NO COPY / Trans or COPY / NO TRANS (which is actually a fair system in my opinion) however i can not create no trans no copy items so how come alot of items i have bought recently have the NO TRANS NO COPY setting ? Any know or care to explain this am really curious.

Z,

No Michi, I was suggesting the opposite. You would sell the object to the first user as NC/T so he or she could give it as a gift. It would then switch to C/NT so the recipient could use and copy it, but not sell it. I think Bilbo got it the wrong way round too.