Perrie Juran Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Quick question... Why are you so hung up on it being given as a freebie? If i buy your mesh and decide i want to gift my group members with a no trans version for Valentines day, why would you care? You made your money. Point of law here. First sale doctrine. You can not dictate the price a reseller sets. Including giving it away. ETA: I just looked at the EULA: "-You CAN NOT give this product as freebie or sell as freebie under any condition whatsoever. -You CAN NOT sell your version under 30% of my price. Please do not lower the quality of the product by making them dirt cheap." This is not legal. You can not dictate the resale price in any manner. We understand your concern but that your product isn't 'cheapened,' but first sale doctrine says I can resell at any price I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovedWarrior Imako Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 lol if that was true then we could buy any digital goods and give it away to anyone we want. I could buy a sim in sl for free and fill my sim with all free stuff and even buy my 3d program for free and enjoy my life in this free world. Are you kidding me? How about you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine Digital info part is for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 LovedWarrior Imako wrote: lol if that was true then we could buy any digital goods and give it away to anyone we want. I could buy a sim in sl for free and fill my sim with all free stuff and even buy my 3d program for free and enjoy my life in this free world. Are you kidding me? How about you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine Digital info part is for you. I'm very aware of that. Note carefully what it says, "The first-sale doctrine does not neatly fit transfers of copies of digital works....." It does not say that "nothing fits." Consider this Price Fixing incident. Also, concerning your filling up a SIM comment, I did not say "permissions" (copy/mod/transfer) could be ignored. That is a moot point to price fixing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 LovedWarrior Imako wrote: lol if that was true then we could buy any digital goods and give it away to anyone we want it is true and we can we can give away our copy. What we cant do is give away copies of our copy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Perrie Juran wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Quick question... Why are you so hung up on it being given as a freebie? If i buy your mesh and decide i want to gift my group members with a no trans version for Valentines day, why would you care? You made your money. Point of law here. First sale doctrine. You can not dictate the price a reseller sets. Including giving it away. This is not legal. You can not dictate the resale price in any manner. US law only? This is where a lot of the legal debate in SL falters, we can debate any legislation we like but when the platform is in one country, the seller in another and the buyer in a 3rd, have fun either prosecuting or defending any point of law, especially where it's not one that LL wants or needs to uphold (such as the gambling one). Whether anyone likes it or not, if someone puts a set of limits on their product sold here, if they're not US resident and bound by US legislation and no such restrictive laws exist where they are, they can probably set terms that would fall foul of US legislation and there's not much that the buyer could whine about. Yes they could attempt to bring action but in probably 99.999% (made up statistic! ) they'd find it not worth the cost and thus nothing would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake1 Nightfire Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Sassy Romano wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Quick question... Why are you so hung up on it being given as a freebie? If i buy your mesh and decide i want to gift my group members with a no trans version for Valentines day, why would you care? You made your money. Point of law here. First sale doctrine. You can not dictate the price a reseller sets. Including giving it away. This is not legal. You can not dictate the resale price in any manner. US law only? This is where a lot of the legal debate in SL falters, we can debate any legislation we like but when the platform is in one country, the seller in another and the buyer in a 3rd, have fun either prosecuting or defending any point of law, especially where it's not one that LL wants or needs to uphold (such as the gambling one). Whether anyone likes it or not, if someone puts a set of limits on their product sold here, if they're not US resident and bound by US legislation and no such restrictive laws exist where they are, they can probably set terms that would fall foul of US legislation and there's not much that the buyer could whine about. Yes they could attempt to bring action but in probably 99.999% (made up statistic! ) they'd find it not worth the cost and thus nothing would happen. I would agree with you except for this nugget in the ToS... 10.2 The applicable law and venue is in San Francisco, California. You agree that this Agreement and the relationship between you and Linden Lab shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to conflict of law principles or the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. Further, you and Linden Lab agree to submit to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the City and County of San Francisco, California, except as provided in Section 10 regarding arbitration. We all agreed to the ToS which means we all agreed to use US law. In the US you can not stipulate a sellers price in your EULA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 It all remains completely moot though for the reason that I said... if someone sets a price, the other party can whine all the hell they like, go ahead and bring a legal case over a few L$. Except in the most rare of case, it just won't happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiteangel Falconvale Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Honestly, taking a look at your rules as well as the statements made here on this thread. I would not buy your full perms. The simple fact that if there is no mapping to be able to use your own textures and have it look good (The mapping ofc is only for the buyer to use and not redistrubited) or with the no transfer rule. I am currently shopping for full perm items with flowers, however the ability to put transfer perms on it is very important. The other full perm builders have other rules, certain prices (I wont buy theirs since I hate being told how much to sell it for) and a few others I cant think of right now. However most rules are, cant sell full perm meaning you can only have copy, mod, transfer, mod/transfer, copy/mod permissions on your final peice. As well if you allow your textures to be added put the rule in that it can not be sold as a stand alone item (Meaning that someone cannot sell your item texture included as is. They have to make a significant change) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 just add to the convo on the jurisdiction point + i am still subject to the consumer and trade laws in my own country i cant take away my customers lawful protections by transferring the jurisdiction to another country. Even if that transfer is voluntary on both our parts the ToS clause is for when I might have a issue with LL itself. Our Courts will ask: Have you prosecuted your case in the US court? If I say No then they say go and do that. Let natural justice takes it course. It is natural that in the first instance I pursue the matter on the course I have previous agreed to If I say Yes but I never got satisfaction. And I can show that whatever LL did constitutes (by my own laws) a question that they should answer then the Court will allow me to proceed. At this time tho the Court is only interested in whether the Court should hear their answer to a constituted question. (meaning that the question has some valid legal basis to it) + if I take a action in my own Court against another user (in any country anywhere) then most provider companies that operate internationally will respect a Court ruling from my own country. For example a Desist Order if the provider (or the user) dont think that the Order is valid then they will take their own steps to have it invalided. And if they can have it invalidated then they most likely do me for damages as well + eta: just add more about transferring to another jusrisdiction as citizens we are not allowed to opt out of the laws that govern us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cathy Foil Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I have long found the way LL has setup the Full Perm system problematic at best and economically devastating at worst. A system that allows reproduction of an item copy after copy to be sold at any price including free with no inherent cost for the seller inevitability sees prices to reach the bottom. The way full perm is setup in SL just magnifies this and increases the speed of the race to the bottom. Some full perm sellers have tried to keep prices reasonable by requiring in their license agreements a minimum price. Some here have pointed out that such minimum price agreements appear to be illegal. I assume they are referring to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 which was amended by the Clayton Act in 1914. It looks like it may be time for another amendment for these acts where written during a time when all goods had real world costs to bring them to market. In the digital copy age there is no real costs. I just read a very interesting article from Duke Law School. The paper primarily deals with E-Books and how Amazon and Apple along with almost all the Publishing companies where battling it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. I must say that at lest Amazon was paying the publishing companies a fee for every ebook. Unlike SL which once sold with full permission the original content creator gets nothing and the item can be sold for very little or given away for free. Amazon was selling many titles at a loss but this was apart of their marketing strategy. It is a very interesting read the title of the paper is : THE APPLE E-BOOK AGREEMENT AND RUINOUS COMPETITION: ARE E-GOODS DIFFERENT FOR ANTITRUST PURPOSES? by MICHAEL WOLFE You can read it here: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=dltr Unfortunately the sight is down for maintenance as I write this Feb 19th 9PM. There is an interesting quote from Justice White on page 9 which, if I am reading it correctly, suggests that an intellectual property right holder may have the right to require a minimum price for the reseller. Below is an exert from page 9: [The Supreme Court precedent on the interaction between intellectual property and antitrust suggests that Congress’s election to enact an intellectual property scheme receives some antitrust deference. In BMI v. CBS, a price-fixing case where the Court eschewed the per se rule in part because of its own unfamiliarity with applying antitrust law to the music industry,36 Justice White left the door open to intellectual-property-based justifications for anticompetitive behavior, though just by a hair. He wrote: Although the copyright laws confer no rights on copyright owners to fix prices among themselves or otherwise to violate the antitrust laws, we would not expect that any market arrangements reasonably necessary to effectuate the rights that are granted would be deemed a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Otherwise, the commerce anticipated by the Copyright Act and protected against restraint by the Sherman Act would not exist at all or would exist only as a pale reminder of what Congress envisioned.] Personally I like how IMVU handles their version of full perm. Items there can not be sold for less than the reseller has bought them for since on every sale the original content creator gets the same amount that the item was originally bought for by the reseller. In order for the reseller to make money have have to raise the price up and in order to compete with other people who bought the same item they have to add value to it by either creating new better textures or adding mesh they created or other mesh items they bought. So if you are a house builder you may buy a bed from one original content creator and a sofa from another. If the bed was L$500 and the sofa was L$200 the minimum price for the house would be L$700. But of course you wouldn't sell it for L$700 or the reseller wouldn't make any money so they might sell it for L$2000 and pocket L$1300 for themselves. I don't know if IMVU is technically breaking the law or not by not allowing reseller to sell at any price they want. Anyway just some food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 as a merchant and want to emulate RL objects so that they are independent objects then we have that already No-Copy + Transfer if want more than 1 of the same object then have to buy more people who make furniture, trees, grass, flowers, animations, etc do this and works really well for them + it works for me as well. Like I really only want Copy for stuff that breaks or gets lost easy. Like vehicles. And Modify stuff like prim hair and attachments i used to want Copy for clothes as well before we had My Outfits. So I could make folders of outfits for quick changing, and for that I did need Copy. Now I dont. I just keep 1 of each clothing item now in my Inventory also bc I cant modify rigged clothes/hair/etc anyways then is no point for them to be Copy to me. I rather have them Transfer. So I can give to somebody else when I dont want them. Is a waste to just dump them in the Trash. Same as is a waste to do this in the RL + No-Copy + Transfer is the way forward, if did want virtual goods to emulate how it works in the RL. A way we already have even for base material items. Like mesh templates, textures, etc sell these to other creatives Modify+NoCopy+Transfer. They can buy a template, texture, etc for each item they build from these materials and then sell each finished product to their own customers if say they buy 50 textures from the factory then can make 50 things to sell. Want to sell more then go and buy some more base materials from the factory. Mesh templates from the mesh mine, etc or start up our own factory and mine + while can argue that Copy+Transfer is detrimental to merchants. Can also argue that Copy+NoTrans for items where Copy is unneccesary, is detrimental to customers edit: tpyo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now