Eliminate Transfer Permissions?

I do not buy anything, if it is not transferable. My thinking is, if I buy something from you, then it becomes mine. You no longer have any say in what I do with it. If you want to keep sole control of it, then don't sell it to the public.

The problem is with the way permission work in SL.

In my opinion, the permissions should work this way:

1. mod/no-mod. This is fine as is.

2. copy/transfer. There should be 3 options---only 1 of which can be chosen for an object:

a) no-copy
b) copy
c) full copy and transfer permissions.

a) no-copy
- You can make unlimited copies of a no-copy object in your inventory. (and if mod permission is given, mod each one separately.)
- You can rez a no-copy object only once. (If you have 3 copies of a no-copy object in your inventory and you rez one, the others copies cannot be rezzed either).
- You can give away a no-copy object, but if you do all copies in your inventory and any copy that is rezzed will be deleted.

b) copy
- You can make unlimited copies of a copy object in your inventory
- You can rez copy objects as many times as you want
- You can give away copy objects, but if you do, all copies in your inventory are deleted as are any rezzed copies you own.

c) full copy and transfer allows you to give away objects while keeping your own copies. (Same as copy and transfer now).

With this system we would eliminate all of the problems of no-copy/trans vs copy/no-trans.

If you do it that way, then all of us builders or designers will be choosing "b or a" Copying AND transferring would only be good for crap... that no one wants... so that they cant resell our designs at higher prices.

That's the point. Only freebies would be given away with full permissions.

What my permissions system does is do away with the issue of not being able to transfer items. You can always give away/transfer items; you simply lose the item when you give it away (even for copy items).

You're absolutely nuts to think that. If someone sells a copy version of an object, and there is not a no transfer option, all one need to is buy one copy, and then go into business selling copies of that item. If there wasnt a no transfer option, you would also have to eliminate copy too... that's just crazy.

Well, yes, that's crazy, but the proposal was a different crazy. It wasn't to eliminate NO-transfer, but to force EVERYTHING to be NO-transfer (eliminating the next-owner transfer permission). Either way, though, a Very Bad Idea. Not radical, just Bad. But in fairness to the OP, it was "just a thought." We all have a flakey synapse or two.

I was once approached to build a themed brothel (it didn't happen). This person had no furniture of his own. He wanted me to also furnish the place. He apparently wasn't willing to shell out the thousands of L for multiple sexgens. Honestly, neither was I - but if I could buy one and copy it, I sure as hell would perform this service. Why? Precisely because I could offer the service and the cost would eventually be recouped.

What effect does that have on the economy, if that were permissible and done on a large scale? Strokerz would go out of business. I wouldn't buy 10, 12, or however many - I'd only have one, and eventually, I would make enough copies that would make me money. The original copy would have to be ridiculously priced - which means that very few people would buy it.

When I make a custom build, I make them mod/nocopy/trans. People move on - their tastes change, and they should have the right to give that build to someone else. I don't want to see something that is supposed to be a one-off original becoming a cookie cutter object as you rent out my custom made building. If you have copy rights, you pay for the right. You are not going to make money off the back of my hard work unless you pay for that right.

I don't see why no trans should be mandatory. All of the options as they are exist for logical reasons and no one is forcing you to make things transferable, except when you take away the right to copy.

To the op:

Are you kidding? Not all but most of those who sell their wares are so money hungry they think they'll die if someone sells anything they've made. They think because they created an item no matter what it is that even after they sell it, it still belongs to them in some way. Or they really think they're honest to god designers and have special access only for them.

They shouldn't care what anyone does with what they paid for since it longer belongs to them. They got whatever price they asked for so they should be happy, instead they're crying about if someone re-sells that item to another. Plus this thing they'll say in response about someone over charging for that items is weak as no one is being forced to buy anything. People aren't stupid, they know if something is being over-priced.

No transfer is nothing but a headache. At least if you put no transfer then you should add copy and modify. When buying items if they're not modifiable I usually don't deal with it at all.
Some clothes like pants come too tight or not high enough at the waist and being able to modify you can then adjust them. Same goes with land or house items. At times they're too big or small and you want to adjust them too and you can't if they'not mod. Why all items are not modifiable is really ridiculous. I can't think of anything that would make sense as to why all items aren't mod.

In RL if I buy someone a gift I'm allowed to transfer it to them, so I'm not quite following your point here. Surely copy is the permission you should worry about if you're bothered about intellectual property rights, not transfer.

I was approached by someone today who told me that she was designing and furnishing a sim. She wanted to buy copyable versions of my BDSM furniture and machinery. I offered her a rebate instead; told her I'd give her a "3 for the price of 2" deal, if she would buy larger amounts. Her reply: it wouldn't be sufficient for the numbers she had in mind.

That's exactly what I mentioned earlier in this thread... buy one tree and place hundreds of copies in dozens of sims. Just stay a member of the land owner group, and you can offer expensive content for peanuts.

Viable arguement= I rent copies of expensive items (or share with friends) and cost the manufacturer of those items business. Not good.
Someone is making money off your free stuff. If they are selling well, perhaps you shouldnt have made them free to begin with. If they are selling in dinky quantities, I wouldnt lose sleep over it. Maybe the person making money off your junk will buy something nice from you. Goes around, comes around kinda karma.

That's a good idea, but I doubt it would work with the current asset database. As soon as you copy something, you have created a new item. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to resize it or to change the textures, it would have to stay identical with the original. There are also ways to change ownership without trading an object, by deeding it to a group for example.

You already have the right to prohibit next owner transfer if you want to. Why should this be mandatory? Failure to think it through is not the fault of the permission system. The economy depends in large part on transferability of goods, especially textures and scripts.

I'm sure Linden won't implement this because it would require a significant change to the database. Every item would require a unique object id (in addition to the key used now) that would identify if an item is a copy of another item. When a copy of a copy or no-copy item is made, the object id would be the same for the copy as it is for the original.