Scrubbing No Mod Prims

Is it possible to scrub the scripts from a no mod prim such as shoes that come with AO's and walking sounds and are no mod?

you can't scrub the prim properties, (remove things like particles effects), but you can use the built in scripts to modify it to the extent the script allows, and then remove those scripts by deleting them from the objects contents.

for instance if you have a pair of shoes with bling and ao scripts, you can turn the bling off (assuming it has a command for it) and then simply delete the scripts /animations.

PS
Pauley DOES rock (Abby FTW)

PS, you can not remove scripts from a nomod item if the scripts are copyable. You can not ever remove scripts (or other inventory) from the child prims of nomod objects. Unless of course the script has a built-in function to do that for you.

delete has worked for me in both cases, in child prims you get a message "not permitted to edit this" but it still deletes....

If the object in question is no mod then you don't have permition to mod it.
If you do are you not going against the TOS agreement?

actually ToS doesn't address that specific issue, and when you do select a no-mod items contents and press delete you get a nice little pop up that reads:

"though permitted, deleting contents may damage the object. do you want to delete that item?"

so it should be valid within both the word and spirit of ToS

Well , ( with no disrespect intended )

To me that's splitting hairs , I think , the right thing to do , if a person wants an unscripted copy of an item, is that they should contact the creator and ask for one or offer to buy one .
People work very hard on thier Items and put no mod for a reason, to alter it without thier
permition, is total disrespect tward the builder , like slapping him or her in the face.
If you made your scripts no mod and someone found away to open and alter it would it not bother you ? ,and if not why bother setting objects to no mod at all .

Mabey I am wrong on the whole thing , been wrong before, it's just how I feel .
Have a Great Day

none taken, and to provide contrast (being as I do scripting and building myself also) I look at it slightly differently. I see it a disabling an unwanted function of the object in question. they aren't changing it, just preventing some behaviors. and i'd much rather the user did that if they could than bothering me for the change, since it takes up my time to modify it, which I would then feel obligated to charge for. but I make no assumptions on what purpose a user intends for anything I create; if they have no need for a particular feature, even though they've payed for all the available features, it doesn't make sense to me for them to have to pay more for a reduced set of those features.

to put it in real world terms, if a parent of a young child bought a compact 2 seat car, and choose to disable the airbag for safety reasons, that's certainly a logical decision. if they had the skill to do so, it only makes sense that they would do it themselves, rather than pay someone else to do it. the same applies if they didn't want the radio to be used or to draw power.

now I'll grant that example is a bit simplistic, after all, it'd be trivial to have the dealership do the work (assuming it was not bought directly from another owner), but dealerships have additional staff and man hours that they can apply to such modifications, whereas a business owner in SL works with a potentially larger client base, with nothing approaching the available man hours of it's real world counterpart.

not that I would refuse such work if the client didn't have the necessary skills, but that I would have to schedule it amongst other things when my time could be spent otherwise, and I'd be charging that client more, for less of a product, which to me, tastes bad.

ETA:
if certain items WERE mission critical, so to speak, to the objects actual function, there are ways of making it more difficult to remove certain items, by placing matching sets in two or more separate prims, and having them pass back and forth if a deletion is detected... these systems aren't fool proof, but they can be effective (such as in demo items)

Hi
You used the RL example of a car , which I believe, people buy with full permition to modify within the laws of where you live , these same people could buy a semi automatic rifle , file down the pin so it fires full automatic , it's better for what they want it for , but does it make it right .
I guess it's all left up to the morals and ethics of each individual.
as they say to each thier own :}

PS I do understand how busy all you master scripters and builders get, my hats of to you for all your hard work.

cars and guns may be bad examples, as the regulation of modifications to them is actually up to a third party, and is some cases are legal to perform, but not legal to sell as such. (interestingly airbags are one of them in some locations, mufflers and catalytic converters are another).

in either case the ethical dilemma in case boils down, is it ethical to require a higher price paid for reduced function, vs, is it ethical to modify an item beyond the extent of it's implied license (I say implied because the permission system is a bit black and white in it's application, even when a creator may intend a shade of grey.)

LL comes down as the legal (not necessarily ethical) authority, so we can't determine any ethical guidance from their stance.

In its essence, the ethical argument comes down to one simple consideration: If modifying the no-mod object doesn't hurt the creator in any way, why should the creator care and, by extension, have any say in the matter?



Boy, ain't that the truth? <.<

If i bought it, and i paid for it, and i choose to *break* it by removing the scripts, that should be my right. Its not as if its unpaid for, or its going to hurt the creator in any fashion.

I get that its not mod, but considering all the implications coming about the *proposed script limits*, I, as the consumer, should be able to remove any and all scripts i deem unnecessary in order to fully get use of an item i have paid for.


The simple thing would be if everyone would remember that if you sell your creations (clothing/shoes/hair/jewelry) as copy/no mods/no transfer, with a resize script, for the love of all that's holy... INCLUDE THE OPTION TO DELETE THE SCRIPTS. I own a club, and using the emerald feature to monitor script usage on a sim, i can say, with FULL certainty, that when you have 10 avies on a sim, and all have resize scripts in the attachments, the lag is horrendous. I have taken employees to an empty sim, and walked them thru deleting the resize scripts, and just on ONE avie, watched the numbers drop by 100-500, depending.

10 people, 10 heads of hair, Most hair is average 200 prims, that's 1-2000 extra scripts, minimum. They maybe passive scripts, but the sim still registers them.

The sad thing? The WORST offenders are 2 of the most popular shoe/boots creators in SL.

One pair of a certain high-heeled sculpted foot shoes with color change and blah blah, ONE PAIR, is almost 500 scripts, depending on the style...and no remove option.

If the scripts had the options to remove, the purchaser could in effect, remove what they don't want/need with out compromising the creators intentions.

I'm just saying....

On theses note - Because I hate going through all the rem lines in a script , I should be able to take the creators name and info out of the script , even though a great deal of scripts say not to , ( mod but must leave the header )
and there was no mention of no transfer so if said person gave the newly modded , no mod object to someone else at a later time , that very well could change the new owners opion of the creators abilities, and if he or she told any one thier opinion , that could hindering sales by word of mouth
If it is too scrpted, find a different one, or better yet build it yourself .

That's an entirely different issue. If you can actually modify a script, as opposed to deleting it, then it's because the creator has passed mod rights to you deliberately. When a scripter gives mod perms on a script, she/he takes the risk that someone might mess with it and release corrupted versions into the world. If you actually modify a no mod script by hacking it, that's a different matter

If someone chooses to damage a scripted object by removing the script, they have harmed no one. All they've done is to make the object less functional than it was. There's nothing unethical about disabling something that you own. In fact, given the amount of lag that many scripted attachments create, it might be considered unethical for you to leave the scripts in them.

That used to work, but they deliberately broke that several years ago, calling it an "exploit". I consider it a clear violation of their commitment to the principle of first sale that they used to espouse on their website, but which disappeared around the same time.

As near as I can tell from comments on the forums around the time this happened it was some kind of gambling token that people were "exploiting". The irony is thick enough to chew and tastes nasty.

worked for me in the standard viewer as of my posting :hrug:: perhaps they decided to unbreak it...

ETA:
no I take it back... it APPEARS to be deleted, but then shows right back up if you click somewhere else then back.... which has to be the most screwy behavior I've ever seen...

Update:
https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-421
contains pretty much this same discussion, and I've added a request for demonstration of Copyright violation to the comments.

if anyone knows of a demonstrable case where allowing this to be fixed would violate copyright or IP your input there would be greatly appreciated. I couldn't think of any myself, but there were mentions of it as a possibility so in fairness it should be looked at.