Fluffy Sharkfin

I agree 100% I was responding to a common argument in threads such as these that merely purchasing an item means that the purchaser has a right to do as they wish with said item and pointing out that simply purchasing said item doesn't automatically grant an entitlement to modify it, however I agree that the point wasn't directly on topic and I apologise for any confusion.

So essentially all this vitriol and name-calling and disparaging creators who don't provide modifiable content is just for funsies?

I'll admit I know very little about US patent law or the constitution since I (like many other residents) am not a US citizen. However I'm sure you're aware of the difference between patents and copyright and the fact that the vast majority of SL content would fall under copyright law and would not even be eligible for a patent so we should probably avoid straying into debating patent law in order to at least stay vaguely on topic. As far as copyright laws go, in the UK they officially date back to 1710 but the concept of intellectual property can be traced all the way back to 6 BC in Greek and Roman cultures as well as references to the moral and economic or property rights of authors in ancient Jewish Talmudic law. All laws aside I really haven't heard any convincing argument in this thread as to what entitles one resident to dictate to another what they do with their property. All arguments about "well I bought it so I should be able to do what I like with it" essentially ignore that when the creator set the permissions for the item it was still their property to do with as they wish, any subsequent purchase of that item does not immediately grant the new owner the right to demand the original creator make changes to said item.

So you're suggesting that intellectual property law is designed purely for the benefit of consumers rather than to provide any protections for the creators of that intellectual property? I'm certainly no expert but I'm having trouble finding any definition that supports your position.

Again, the permissions system was not implemented for the convenience of residents in general but as a way to allow creators some control over their creations. Arguing that no mod option offers no benefit to end users is like arguing that copyright and intellectual property law doesn't provide any benefit to those who consume content. Of course it doesn't because it was never meant to. It isn't a content creators right to do it simply because they're allowed to do it, it's their right because it's their creation, they created it and as such they can do whatever dumbass thing they like with it, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else approves or not.

Well I can't exactly defend a creators right to make questionable decisions regarding the permissions of the content they create while simultaneously criticizing you for what I might consider to be questionable interpretations of other peoples posts, so touché, I guess!

I understand that from a merchants perspective this may seem like an unreasonable return for the amount of time invested however I think the benefits to the platform overall really do compensate for that. An increase in creativity within SL and wider availability of well made modifiable content taking advantage of the latest features would increase the overall quality of content in SL and potentially draw in more users, which would benefit everyone. In an ideal world some talented creators would wake up one day and choose philanthropic benevolence instead of capitalistic violence and release a bunch of free full perms modular kits with licensing that permits anyone to resell their creations on the condition that they include the entire kit with original permissions alongside whatever (modifiable) prefab buildings they create. 100%. Also Kudos to LL for their work on the PBR viewer which, despite my early fears, didn't make my PC burst into flames the second I turned on all the features!

I've always loved making modular building components and I really feel like they're woefully under-utilized in SL. After seeing the recent thread about how much people's computers cost I did a quick google search and found that my current system has a value of approximately $350 so yes I'm painfully aware of the toll a texture heavy environment can take on my poor, passively-cooled GPU! 😅

I'd also love to see more creators provide matching modular building components, texture trim-sheets, etc. alongside prefab buildings so that residents can customize buildings or create entirely new ones. Doing so would mean more shared textures between assets and less strain on hardware on both the server and client side. With the advent of PBR now would be a great time for creators to set a new precedent since there is so much content which can potentially be optimized and improved using PBR.

I must admit that I've always wondered why people would assume that attacking, belittling or otherwise disparaging a creator will somehow make them more amenable to their requests. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest anyone was jealous or weren't able to create the things they want themselves but there does seem to be this assumption that creating content for SL is gatekept in some way when the reality is that the only gatekeeper to creating any type of content you want in SL is yourself.

I honestly had little doubt that we would see eye to eye on the matter after a brief discussion. I've always had a huge amount of respect for your opinion and in all my years of reading these forums have yet to come across a post of yours that I didn't agree with (on some level if not entirely). You're right that IP rights within SL aren't even a consideration but I've always assumed that the permissions system was put in place more to give creators a sense of control over their creations rather than for the benefits of residents in general. Whether the outcome of that has had a positive or negative effect on the platform as a whole is certainly debatable but then you also have to wonder how many creators would not have made content for SL if the permissions system hadn't been put in place.

I think for the most part people do, and for the rare times when differences are irreconcilable I think there should be weekly LL sponsored in-world snowball fights where participants from each side of the discussion can meet on a snowy field of battle and resolve the matter honorably... I'd even provide the snowballs (modifiable ones of course!)

Respectfully, I wasn't the one that tried to draw an equivalence between granting mod permissions to residents and agreeing to the section of the TOS that you quoted. The truth is I agree with you entirely on the benefits of modifiable content and the effect of no-mod content on the platform as a whole. Furthermore I would encourage anyone who wants to see more modifiable content in SL to reach out to creators and (respectfully) try to persuade them of the benefits and failing that to support those creators that do provide content that's modifiable! I just can't get behind the idea of labelling individuals as selfish, egotistical or greedy simply because they don't want to license their creations based on the dictates of others who had no part in the creative process.

I absolutely agree, and I for one trust LL not to abuse their assumed ownership of my IP (as I recall several creators didn't and simply left SL or stopped creating). LL were very clear about what the intentions of this section of the TOS was in order to try and placate some of the creators who were incensed by its implications and, while they could change their minds at any time, doing so would alienate a significant portion of their user base and make for some very bad publicity.