Is NoCopy NoModify NoTransfer ethical? Is it allowed by TOS?

[RagDoll Lemon]

---

You ever heard the expression "if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is"?  Greed?  Who's greed are you talking about?  Greedy people are easily scammed by greedy people.  Sorry, I'm not sympathic.

---

I'm not looking for sympathy.  I looking for visibility without violating forum rules.  And I'm hoping for a Linden to wonder by and connect my thread to the multiple ARs although I know that's a long shot.  I appreciate you taking the time to respond honestly.  I'm not actually as greedy as you might imagine but your opinion of me is not important to my being here. 

 

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

And I'm hoping for a Linden to wonder by...

---

Odds are better that I'll step out onto the street and be hit by a bus.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

RagDoll

Lemon wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

What were the perms on the item when you bought it, and how do you say the alteration in them has lessened its value to you?   And what, if anything, was said at the time of sale about compulsory updates and changes?

 

Perms were

NoCopy

, Mod (except for scripts), Transfer   Updated products are

NoCopy

, Mod (except for scripts,

NoTransfer

.  

---

Thanks. Was it, in practice, transferable, or did it only work if the owner had an account with, or licence from the creator or whatever, and how do you say the fact it's not transferable has materially reduced its value or use to you?

Obviously you can't now get rid of it to someone else, but I doubt you had its potential second-hand or resale value much in mind when you bought it (as you might have done with breedable animals or something).

 

[Telexa Gabardini]

If there is a person here who could create a 1 prim or multiple linked prims and make then No Copy/ No Mod/ No Transfer and pass them to my avatar in world I will gladly retract my original comment. BTW, you can't add "anything to its contents to do so. I commented on how the original post was made. What came after it has nothing to do with my original post. 

[RagDoll Lemon]

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

Perms were NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts), Transfer   Updated products are NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts, NoTransfer.  

---

So basically you're bent out of shape because you want to unload a product that you bought that you say doesn't do what it's supposed to do and you can't because it's no longer transferable. In other words, you'd like to be able to pass it on to another sucker. At the right price, of course.

Does that sum it up?

---

No.  I would acutally prefer that the company rollback their products to their original advertised functionality.

[Erik Vrandic]

Just to clarify this. I buy a widget on the Marketplace and it is No Copy/No Mod/TRANSFERABLE.

This widget relies on a creator controlled server hosted off the SL grid. By modifying the off grid server code the creator makes the widget NO TRANSFER as well as No Copy/No Mod. I am guessing if you sell or transfer the item the item basically becomes a fancy prim brick. This is now not the widget that was originally bought. What rights does the orignal creator have after they have already set the permissions and sold the items? 

Is this like being able to make all sculpty prim boots into sculpty flip flops? Can I use the flip flops the same way as the boots? How much law is out there concerning changing access to intellectual property?

What concerns me is the privacy issues of an outside server knowing the avatar account and the UUID of the products tied to the account. 

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

Perms were NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts), Transfer   Updated products are NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts, NoTransfer.  

---

So basically you're bent out of shape because you want to unload a product that you bought that you say doesn't do what it's supposed to do and you can't because it's no longer transferable. In other words, you'd like to be able to pass it on to another sucker. At the right price, of course.

Does that sum it up?

---

No.  I would acutally prefer that the company rollback their products to their original advertised functionality.

---

Right. To NoCopy, Mod (except for scripts), Transfer (Transfer being the only difference). To accomplish the above. Correct?

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Erik Vrandic wrote:

What concerns me is the privacy issues

of

an outside server knowing the avatar account and the UUID of the products tied to the account. 

---

If you buy a product, then of course the merchant knows she's sold it you, and if you buy a product that communicates with an external server, then of course the server knows whose items its communicating with, where they are and so on.

How else do you expect it to work?

It's like me complaining Amazon know where I live, what books I buy and what my credit card number is.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Ethics has nothing to do with it. 

A creator has the right under the TOS to sell an item under any terms they wish to specify.  It could not be otherwise as the creator always retains

full IP rights

to their products and when you buy their creation, you are only buying the right to use it in SL under the terms specified by the creator.  The Linden ''permission system" is set up as a convenient way for creators to enforce their terms but a creator may use any other means to do that too. If you read section 7 of the TOS there is no requirement there that the permission system be the only way to set the terms of use.

A consumer has the right to buy the product or not. If you don't like the permissions, don't buy the product. 

 

---

i wouldn't say they can go throwing anything up there they wish..they have to stay within the TOS here  themselves..as the consumers have rights as well..

you have no perms and full perms or inbetween.. copy mod transfer..

anything they decide to write up that goes beyond the provided service permissions really does not hold water..because the consumer would be within the TOS here if they abided by the perms set..

it would be as valid as disclaimers in someones profile pretty much going beyond the TOS..

the service provides permissions and as long as the users abide by the perms provided by content creator through the service.. the second life service..they are fine..the content creator agrees to this as well if you look at the start of 7.3

from the section

7.3 You grant certain Content licenses to users of Second Life by submitting your Content to publicly accessible areas of the Service.

"You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to any publicly accessible areas of the Service, you hereby grant each user of Second Life a non-exclusive license to access the User Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content In-World or otherwise on the Service solely as permitted by you through your interactions with the Service under these Terms of Service. This license is referred to as the "User Content License," and the Content being licensed is referred to as "User Content."

down a bit it goes on to say..

"Your interactions with the Service" may include use of the Second Life permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings for indicating how other users may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform your Content In-World subject to these Terms of Service. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Content must be consistent with these Terms of Service, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify these Terms of Service.

 

unless i am misunderstanding what you are saying..if so then i' sorry hehehe

just waking up and on my first yummy cup hehehe

[Bouttime Whybrow]

jack trades his cow for some magic beans, his mommy got all upset because he was ripped off.

when the beans turn out to work in a way, jack becomes uneithical by stealing the goose that lays the golden egg from the giant to make it all worthwhile.

the giant was the only ethical person in the story.

someone bought some magic beans, when they didn't turn out to work their complaint is they can't inturn sucker someone else into taking the beans off their hands.

when the music stops someone must be left without a chair, it may as well be the OP as anyone else.

[Telexa Gabardini]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Erik Vrandic wrote:

What concerns me is the privacy issues

of

an outside server knowing the avatar account and the UUID of the products tied to the account. 

---

If you buy a product, then of course the merchant knows she's sold it

you

, and if you buy a product that communicates with an external server, then of course the server knows whose items its communicating with, where they are and so on.

How else do you expect it to work?

It's like me complaining Amazon know where I live, what books I buy and what my credit card number is.

 

---

 

I agree with everything you said. However if this product was also used to identify the use of Alts and then this information was shared within their own group as a form of harassment, would it still then be OK?

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Telexa

Gabardini wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Erik Vrandic wrote:

What concerns me is the privacy issues

of

an outside server knowing the avatar account and the UUID of the products tied to the account. 

---

If you buy a product, then of course the merchant knows she's sold it

you

, and if you buy a product that communicates with an external server, then of course the server knows whose items its communicating with, where they are and so on.

How else do you expect it to work?

It's like me complaining Amazon know where I live, what books I buy and what my credit card number is.

 

---

 

I agree with everything you said. However if this product was also used to identify the use of

Alts

and then this information was shared within their own group as a form of harassment, would it still then be OK?

---

No.  Sharing information about alts with the person's consent is against TOS, and if that's going on, then certainly AR whoever is doing it. 

But I don't quite see how this device would know anything about people's alts (unless you need to tell the creator about an alt, if you want your alt to be able to manage the gadget for you).   Does it know who your alts are?

 

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

Telexa Gabardini wrote:

I agree with everything you said. However if this product was also used to identify the use of Alts and then this information was shared within their own group as a form of harassment, would it still then be OK?

---

No, it wouldn't. But you already knew that.

I love how this was about one thing and now it's becoming about another. Just how many types of TOS violations are you going to accuse these people of before it's over?

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Telexa Gabardini wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Erik Vrandic wrote:

What concerns me is the privacy issues

of

an outside server knowing the avatar account and the UUID of the products tied to the account. 

---

If you buy a product, then of course the merchant knows she's sold it

you

, and if you buy a product that communicates with an external server, then of course the server knows whose items its communicating with, where they are and so on.

How else do you expect it to work?

It's like me complaining Amazon know where I live, what books I buy and what my credit card number is.

 

---

 

I agree with everything you said. However if this product was also used to identify the use of Alts and then this information was shared within their own group as a form of harassment, would it still then be OK?

---

the product itself would be AR'able as well..not only the user sharing the personal information..

so AR both if that is what is going on..

[Telexa Gabardini]

---

Annuli Cazenovia wrote:

---

Telex

Gabardine wrote:

---

Annuli Cazenovia wrote:

---

Erik Veranda wrote:

What concerns me is the privacy issues

of

an outside server knowing the avatar account and the DID of the products tied to the account. 

---

If you buy a product, then of course the merchant knows she's sold it

you

, and if you buy a product that communicates with an external server, then of course the server knows whose items its communicating with, where they are and so on.

How else do you expect it to work?

It's like me complaining Amazon know where I live, what books I buy and what my credit card number is.

 

---

 

I agree with everything you said. However if this product was also used to identify the use of

Alts

and then this information was shared within their own group as a form of harassment, would it still then be OK?

---

No.  Sharing information about

alts

 with the person's consent is against TOSS, and if that's going on, then certainly AR whoever is doing it. 

But I don't quite see how this device would know anything about people's

alts

 (unless you need to tell the creator about an

alt

, if you want your

alt

to be able to manage the gadget for you).   Does it know who your alts are?

 

---

The owner has claimed to have that ability, and yes the owner has in fact called out correct alts in their group. The owner has also banned correct alts as well. They do own a website though and I could assume that if people posted in their forums with different avatars then it could also be assumed that they could connect avatars.

[161488303349]

yes

the inworld device is vending a service. thats what is being sold. a service for an establishment fee and an ongoing service fee

the device permissions where changed to reinforce this, seems like, to actual prevent people like the OP onselling the device itself to someone else as if it was a product

[Telexa Gabardini]

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

---

Telexa Gabardini wrote:

I agree with everything you said. However if this product was also used to identify the use of Alts and then this information was shared within their own group as a form of harassment, would it still then be OK?

---

No, it wouldn't. But you already knew that.

I love how this was about one thing and now it's becoming about another. Just how many types of TOS violations are you going to accuse these people of before it's over?

---

I wasn't really accusing them of anything so not sure what you are talking about. I know its rather impossible to create a prim or linkset of prims with the permission set to No Copy/ No Mod/ No Trans though, unless you add something to its contents. So my original post remains for now until im proven otherwise. As for the Alt detection and revealing of alts, I as well as hundreds of others have seen it first hand so is that really an accusation?

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Telexa Gabardini wrote:

---

Annuli Cazenovia wrote:

---

Telex

Gabardine wrote:

---

Annuli Cazenovia wrote:

---

Erik Veranda wrote:

What concerns me is the privacy issues

of

an outside server knowing the avatar account and the DID of the products tied to the account. 

---

If you buy a product, then of course the merchant knows she's sold it

you

, and if you buy a product that communicates with an external server, then of course the server knows whose items its communicating with, where they are and so on.

How else do you expect it to work?

It's like me complaining Amazon know where I live, what books I buy and what my credit card number is.

 

---

 

I agree with everything you said. However if this product was also used to identify the use of

Alts

and then this information was shared within their own group as a form of harassment, would it still then be OK?

---

No.  Sharing information about

alts

 with the person's consent is against TOSS, and if that's going on, then certainly AR whoever is doing it. 

But I don't quite see how this device would know anything about people's

alts

 (unless you need to tell the creator about an

alt

, if you want your

alt

to be able to manage the gadget for you).   Does it know who your alts are?

 

---

The owner has claimed to have that ability, and yes the owner has in fact called out correct alts in their group. The owner has also banned correct alts as well. They do own a website though and I could assume that if people posted in their forums with different avatars then it could also be assumed that they could connect avatars.

---

the information doesn't have to be true or false..if they go in group saying me and you are alts...thats the act of sharing personal information...

if they have a product that imports personal information inworld that you did not give permission to be given..it's against the TOS

the object shares the information the seocnd it gives it to a user other than the person who's information it is..

so if you went and got this item and say scanned a friend and it gave you all their alts names or what it thought were their alt names or any information not listed on their users account profile..you could AR the product..

[Peggy Paperdoll]

People are making great big leaps here........all because someone has their knickers all wadded up over permissions.    The only reason I can think the OP would be all up in arms over permissions is pretty much the same as Innula's.  Unhappy with the product and wants to dump it on someone else.

Knowing the scale of the SL economy $L3000 (or is it $L5000.....both have been tossed out) is a pretty "expensive" item......all things considered.  You would think a smart person would know what they are buying before they bought it........and if they could not find out what it is that they were buying, they wouldn't buy it (or, at least, know it's a gamble).  But instead of taking responsibility for their own actions, they want to blame someone else........and implicate LL as responsible because LL didn't look out for them.

Pretty typical of real life in that regard.  :smileyvery-happy:

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

People are making great big leaps here........all because someone has their knickers all wadded up over permissions. 

  The only reason I can think the OP would be all up in arms over permissions is pretty much the same as Innula's.  Unhappy with the product and wants to dump it on someone else.

Knowing the scale of the SL economy $L3000 (or is it $L5000.....both have been tossed out) is a pretty "expensive" item......all things considered.  You would think a smart person would know what they are buying before they bought it........and if they could not find out what it is that they were buying, they wouldn't buy it (or, at least, know it's a gamble).  But instead of taking responsibility for their own actions, they want to blame someone else........and implicate LL as responsible because LL didn't look out for them.

Pretty typical of real life in that regard.  :smileyvery-happy:

---

agree's..if it is iffy in the add or descriptions or we don't like the perms..it's always best to move on..

it's nobody else's fault or respnsability if it's out there in plain site  to read before purchase but the consumers..

if afterwards something iffy shows up.. discontinue if we don't agree with the changes.just like not clicking agree to TOS changes that LL may make..we just don't click agree..or if changes are made that may go against the TOS..then Ar it..

unless someone is being sneaky..it's pretty much on us..

 

 

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

Unhappy with the product and wants to dump it on someone else.

---

Yep, that's how I see it. And Bouttime is right. "when the music stops someone must be left without a chair, it may as well be the OP as anyone else."

[Erik Vrandic]

What ways are there to 'track' an alt? I thought the only way outside of cracking SL's servers is to track IP addresses. 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Erik Vrandic wrote:

What ways are there to 'track' an alt? I thought the only way outside of cracking SL's servers is to track IP addresses. 

---

thats not a sure way either..

basically if there is a database linked to an inworld object sending in personal information in world about users..true or false information..the object is breaking the TOS which falls on the creator unless it was modded buy thew user using it to do that..

unless a user gives permission in that instance or has it on their profile..if that person using the object shares that information in any way with other users..thats against the disclosure rule in the CS..thats any information not provided in the profile such as groups or alt names or anything kept hidden from the profile..and also could fall under the defimation area as well if it's false information..

there is no true solid way to expose alts..it's all guess work and bullcrap on whoever created the database to do it..i don't even think they can through the server..

LL can't keep track of them or they could stop people from making alts if that were the case..

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

There are too many posts in this thread to read through so, on the off-chance that it hasn't been said before...

1. Yes, it's perfectly ethical. Why wouldn't it be?

2. Yes, it's allowed by the ToS, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be. If you think differently, you'd need to show the part of the ToS that disallows it, instead of just fishing in the dark.

[Dilbert Dilweg]

All I have to say is LOL