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

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

After looking at what some think is the nefarious object, I see that players can buy some accessories for the game, but the huds are free. I wouldn't say they bought into anything.

Bottom line though, If I had this device on my land, I would delete it instead of trying to pass it on to another sucker.

[Telexa Gabardini]

---

Rosemaery Lorefield wrote:

I'm sorry but the specific complaint in the OP was about someone (presumeably the OP) who bought a very expensive traffic gaming system, didn't like the permissions, were pissed that it didn't work well enough, and wanted someone to be outraged with them.

<<

They bought into this sham>>

I thought you said these were the players, not the owners of the nefarious devices? Do players spend 5000L and up for the means to play this game? If this is all the same person then they have the market cornered on rip offs lol.

<<

Not to mention these products skirt around closely to multiple Linden TOS violations of gaming traffic, gambling, spam, and harassment to name a few>>

I really don't think they skirt TOS at all. They run on external servers to avoid too much attention, but they are directly against TOS traffic gaming and gambling rules.

---

All I can say is your still wrong about the OP. They are a player not a person who bought into the idea to generate traffic. I have given enough clues to what they products are. They sell both the products that are used by the people doing it for the purpose to game the traffic and also for the players that buy them to get the money and as the products claim have fun. The op falls into the later of that. You have taken the time now to make many post with assumptions. and that's cool but they are bashing of the OP on something that is irrelevant to what the complain was. Take the 2 minutes to go look at the products in question and its clear to see some are set for Traffic gaming and some are sold for players to use.

 

They do in fact skirt the TOS and they don't do it in any way by being housed on a external server so that really is just crazy talk. You know I will say that to play by Lindens rules here sucks because it would be best to just say who the damn creator is and what the hell they sell. This thread turns into a mess because the real context of it gets lost due to not being able to reveal with out a doubt the products in question. I have since told the people complaining it would be better to take this to SLU where these products already have a history and threads. However people here are tame in comparison to how much a OP will get ripped apart in a SLU forum. At the least though the real names and products names can be revealed as well as the 100's of transcripts of conversations of the Creator they make in their own group chats and notices proving their deceptions. But it is what it is.

In the OP post and title it claims the object has been made No Copy/ No Mod/ No Trans. Many people have claimed that is ethical and not against TOS. Later it was determined that the object was set to No copy/ Mod (except for scripts/ No Trans. However im still waiting for just one person to send me 1 prim or a linkset with the perms set to No copy/ No Mod/ No Trans with out placing anything in its contents to achieve that. I have a feeling I will be waiting for eternity for that object too. So again my first post in this thread still stands till proven otherwise.

[Rival Destiny]

---

Telexa Gabardini wrote:

---

Rosemaery Lorefield wrote:

I'm sorry but the specific complaint in the OP was about someone (presumeably the OP) who bought a very expensive traffic gaming system, didn't like the permissions, were pissed that it didn't work well enough, and wanted someone to be outraged with them.

<<

They bought into this sham>>

I thought you said these were the players, not the owners of the nefarious devices? Do players spend 5000L and up for the means to play this game? If this is all the same person then they have the market cornered on rip offs lol.

<<

Not to mention these products skirt around closely to multiple Linden TOS violations of gaming traffic, gambling, spam, and harassment to name a few>>

I really don't think they skirt TOS at all. They run on external servers to avoid too much attention, but they are directly against TOS traffic gaming and gambling rules.

---

All I can say is your still wrong about the OP. They are a player not a person who bought into the idea to generate traffic. I have given enough clues to what they products are. They sell both the products that are used by the people doing it for the purpose to game the traffic and also for the players that buy them to get the money and as the products claim have fun. The op falls into the later of that. You have taken the time now to make many post with assumptions. and that's cool but they are bashing of the OP on something that is irrelevant to what the complain was. Take the 2 minutes to go look at the products in question and its clear to see some are set for Traffic gaming and some are sold for players to use.

 

They do in fact skirt the TOS and they don't do it in any way by being housed on a external server so that really is just crazy talk. You know I will say that to play by Lindens rules here sucks because it would be best to just say who the damn creator is and what the hell they sell. This thread turns into a mess because the real context of it gets lost due to not being able to reveal with out a doubt the products in question. I have since told the people complaining it would be better to take this to SLU where these products already have a history and threads. However people here are tame in comparison to how much a OP will get ripped apart in a SLU forum. At the least though the real names and products names can be revealed as well as the 100's of transcripts of conversations of the Creator they make in their own group chats and notices proving their deceptions. But it is what it is.

In the OP post and title it claims the object has been made No Copy/ No Mod/ No Trans. Many people have claimed that is ethical and not against TOS. Later it was determined that the object was set to No copy/ Mod (except for scripts/ No Trans.

However im still waiting for just one person to send me 1 prim or a linkset with the perms set to No copy/ No Mod/ No Trans with out placing anything in its contents to achieve that. I have a feeling I will be waiting for eternity for that object too. So again my first post in this thread still stands till proven otherwise.

---

---

---

I am missing something here obviously.  To make an item have no perms you have to add something to contents .... yes.  But that is how you make something no permissions so I'm wondering why you want someone to send you something that is not possible.? 

It only reinforces that it can't be done but in no way negates the fact that you can make an item no permissions.

Sorry if I missed something here.

[Telexa Gabardini]

---

Rival Destiny wrote:

I am missing something here obviously.  To make an item have no perms you have to add something to contents .... yes.  But that is how you make something no permissions so I'm wondering why you want someone to send you something that is not possible.? 

It only reinforces that it can't be done but in no way negates the fact that you

can

make an item no permissions.

Sorry if I missed something here.

---

That's exactly my point! And yet so many here have made the claim first off it can be done, and second it is not against TOS to do so. You have to add something to its contents to achieve that set of permissions. Yet people here that are even older then me in SL age claim its possible. All I can really do is shake my head and wait for these magical prims to arrive.

[Rival Destiny]

Well I suppose that's the part I missed.  I didn't see anyone in here state that you can make an object or a link set no perms without adding something.  I think when anyone has spoken about a no perm object, they have done so without discussing how it was made.  At least, I totally missed the comments where anyone has said otherwise.

Bottom line, it's not against TOS to do this. 

 

[PeachJubilee]

---

Rival Destiny wrote:

Well I suppose that's the part I missed.  I didn't see anyone in here state that you

can

make an object or a link set no perms

without

adding something.  I think when anyone has spoken about a no perm object, they have done so without discussing how it was made.  At least, I totally missed the comments where anyone has said otherwise.

Bottom line, it's not against TOS to do this. 

 

---

 

 If LL wanted you to be able to make an item no copy and no trans at the same time, you could uncheck both these perms for the next owner, at the same time in the edit menu.  But you can't because the permission system does not allow this.

 

Merging two items together for the purpose of working around this limitation in the perms system sounds a lot like circumventing a limititation of the perms system. 

 

It's against the TOS to circumvent the perms system.

 

This particular bottom line lies beneath muddy and opaque waters.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

PeachJubilee wrote:

---

Rival Destiny wrote:

Well I suppose that's the part I missed.  I didn't see anyone in here state that you

can

make an object or a link set no perms

without

adding something.  I think when anyone has spoken about a no perm object, they have done so without discussing how it was made.  At least, I totally missed the comments where anyone has said otherwise.

Bottom line, it's not against TOS to do this. 

 

---

 

 If LL wanted you to be able to make an item no copy and no trans at the same time, you could uncheck both these perms for the next owner, at the same time in the edit menu.  But you can't because the permission system does not allow this.

 

Merging two items together for the purpose of working around this limitation in the perms system sounds a lot like circumventing a limititation of the perms system. 

 

It's against the TOS to circumvent the perms system.

 

This particular bottom line lies beneath muddy and opaque waters.

---

I have to say I read the bit about circumventing the permissions system as being directed at stopping people changing the terms of the licence the object's creator has granted them to use it, but there's only one way to find out -- if someone thinks a no-copy, no-mod, no transfer item is against ToS then simply AR it and see what, if anything, happens.

 

[Phil Deakins]

Any circumventing of the perms system that's against the ToS is concerned with  bypassing or changing the perms of another person's items. It's nothing to do with setting perms on your own items.

Setting perms to no-copy, no-mod and no-trans is perfectly in keeping with the ToS. It's not for any user to say that, "if LL had wanted... etc.". Imo, LL made the perms in the Edit box the way they did simply because they thought that would be how they were wanted and, on the whole, they were right.

I'd still like to know exactly what the item is but I suppose, unless the OP says what it is, I'm not going to know.

 

A general point:

Selling traffic-gaming systems, and owning them, is not against the ToS. It's the gaming of traffic (actually doing it) that's against the ToS.

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

Ok well the OP should be more specific. It is not against TOS to say "what" an item is on here, maybe to list the store or creator, but not the general thing.

And, the original question was about the ethics of making items no perms, then about changing functionality of things that cost 5000L. 

If people have no clue what the OP is talking about, or don't believe that the OP was not complaining about what she was complaining about, that is her fault for being completely unclear.

<<You have taken the time now to make many post with assumptions>>

Yea, what choice do people have in this thread other than to make assumptions? Oh yea, to not post in it anymore. I'll opt for that one

Good luck with your nefarious whatever it is

ETA- Really, it would be nice for the OP to straighten things out because I don't think people have been insanely critical of her. It sure is nice she has you to stick up for her even when she portrays herself as the owner of this mysterious object.

[Peggy Paperdoll]

"...

ETA- Really, it would be nice for the OP to straighten things out because I don't think people have been insanely critical of her. It sure is nice she has you to stick up for her even when she portrays herself as the owner of this mysterious object."

----------------------------------------------------

I believe the OP has "straightened things out".  The problem I see (and one of the main problems I've had with this thread from the very beginning) is how these mysterious supporters knew from the very start exactly what the "problem" was (is).  Seems we are dealing with surogates (sock puppets?).  The number one question I've had from the beginning has never been answered (or clarified).  Why is it such a bad thing that the OP (or someone else) cannot transfer an item?  Did they purchase the item originally with the intent or reselling (or giving it away) and now they can't because they were "forced" to upgrade and the upgrade changed the permissions?  Something that evidently cost somewhere between $L3000 and $L5000 (the price of a pretty nice skin)?  What was the "hook" that made them think it was a good deal?  I can't help thinking of that age old truism......."If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is".  But, I'm thinking the more likely "hook" was (or is) that using this, whatever it is, would be an easy way to get rich quick in SL.

Something's very wrong here (not just the sock puppets chimming in either).  I think was someone who knew exactly what the item was going to do for them (well, what the item was supposed to do anyway) and they knew from the very beginning that is was a scam of some sort.  And now the scam only scammed the OP.........now she/he is upset that they couldn't pass this scam along to others.  In short they got cut out of profits that this scam promised them.

[161488303349]

just about perms

i always thought it was weird that linden made it so that perms on a single object could only be set: no transfer or no copy. that you cant set: no transfer and no copy

is weird because you can set two objects that way. so i not really see the point in not being able to do with one

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

And that's why I decided to finish my conversation with the OP/her friend/whoever.

I tend to get a little bitchy when people get irritating. Bottom line is that the product promotes cheating, I really don't feel bad for people who tried to cheat the system and failed. 

[PeachJubilee]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

---

I have to say I read the bit about circumventing the permissions system as being directed at stopping people changing the terms of the licence the object's creator has granted them to use it, but there's only one way to find out -- if someone thinks a no-copy, no-mod, no transfer item is against ToS then simply AR it and see what, if anything, happens.

 

---

I would read it exactly the same way if the ability to set an item to no copy and no transfer were available from the permissions section of the edit menu. 

Your method would not identify whether or not it is a TOS violation to merge items for the purpose of circumventing this restriction, and I doubt that there is a way to identify as much because if it is intended to be technically against the TOS, such a term is effectively unenforcable.

There are plenty of reasons why someone might merge a no copy item and no trans item.  Merging a no copy house door with a no trans script because you want your house door to have the functionality the script brings, is not merging them for the purpose of circumventing a limitation in the perms system. 

From a practical point of view, enforcement is unlikely no matter whether or not the activity is intended to be prohibited because enforcement would need mind reading capacities to determine why someone merged two items to produce a no copy and no trans item. 

The crux of my post is that it's unclear, and as you point out you "read" the TOS to mean something that it might mean, but nothing in the text of the TOS excludes the possibility that the TOS means exactly what it says rather than what you read it as meaning.  It's ambiguous if you have to guess beyond a strict literal interpretation, or in other words, if it's a bottom line, it's a line that lies beneath muddy and opaque waters.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

PeachJubilee

wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

---

I have to say I read the bit about circumventing the permissions system as being directed at stopping people changing the terms of the

licence

the object's creator has granted them to use it, but there's only one way to find out -- if someone thinks a no-copy, no-mod, no transfer item is against ToS then simply AR it and see what, if anything, happens.

 

---

I would read it exactly the same way if the ability to set an item to no copy and no transfer were available from the permissions section of the edit menu. 

Your method would not identify whether or not it is a TOS violation to merge items for the purpose of circumventing this restriction, and I doubt that there is a way to identify as much because if it is intended to be technically against the TOS, such a term is effectively

unenforcable

.

There are plenty of reasons why someone might merge a no copy item and no

trans

item.  Merging a no copy house door with a no

trans

script because you want your house door to have the functionality the script brings, is not merging them for the purpose of circumventing a limitation in the perms system. 

From a practical point of view, enforcement is unlikely no matter whether or not the activity is intended to be prohibited because enforcement would need mind reading capacities to determine why someone merged two items to produce a no copy and no

trans

item. 

The crux of my post is that it's unclear, and as you point out you "read" the TOS to mean something that it might mean, but nothing in the text of the TOS excludes the possibility that the TOS means exactly what it says rather than what you read it as meaning.  It's ambiguous if you have to guess beyond a strict literal interpretation, or in other words, if it's a bottom line, it's a line that lies beneath muddy and opaque waters.

---

The way you or I might understand the text of that particular bit of the TOS is neither nor there.

As I went on to suggest, the only way to find out the views of the only people  whose understanding of the TOS count -- LL -- is to AR one of these no-copy, no-mod, no-transfer  items for circumventing LL's permission system, and wait to see what happens or doesn't happen.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

PeachJubilee wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

I have to say I read the bit about circumventing the permissions system as being directed at stopping people changing the terms of the licence the object's creator has granted them to use it, but there's only one way to find out -- if someone thinks a no-copy, no-mod, no transfer item is against ToS then simply AR it and see what, if anything, happens. 

---

I would read it exactly the same way if the ability to set an item to no copy and no transfer were available from the permissions section of the edit menu. 

---

Your thinking is that, because LL made it impossible to set an object in the Edit box with no perms at all, doing it another way is "circumeventing the permissions" and is, therefore, against the ToS. I say you are wrong, and I'll use your own thinking to show it.

As has been pointed out, LL made things so that we can make objects that have no permissions at all. Therefore, doing it is not circumventing the permissions because LL gave us the means to do it, so it's not against the bit of the ToS that you think it's against.

I'll say it again. Circumventing the permissions system means getting around the permissions set on other people's objects. It has nothing to do with our own creations.

 

ETA:

One more thing. I have searched the ToS on the words "permission" and "circumvent". "Circumvent" isn't used anywhere and I found nothing that suggests what you say the ToS says. I think there should be something there that's relevant but I can't find anything. You wrote, "It's against the TOS to circumvent the perms system". Perhaps you would copy-paste the bit of the ToS you are thinking of.

[Qie Niangao]

---

Your thinking is that, because LL made it impossible to set an object in the Edit box with no perms at all, doing it another way is "circumeventing the permissions" and is, therefore, against the ToS. 

---

This whole line of thinking is absurd on the face of it. The built-in permissions system isn't the only way a creator is explicitly allowed by the ToS to restrict the buyer's license to a product.  Creators can impose any EULA they wish; if it will stand up in court, a buyer must follow it--not only by law, but by ToS. Even if the object shows full perm, for example, it doesn't mean that a buyer is allowed to actually copy, transfer, or modify it -- or even use it on alternate Tuesdays unless they whistle "The Stars and Stripes Forever" while standing on their head.

Moreover, in the absence of such a EULA, the permissions on an object mean exactly what they say. Because it's impossible to set a prim assembly to be both no-copy and no-transfer, whichever of those permissions remain is the permission on that prim assembly, sans content. If the assembly is also no-mod, it may be impossible to remove contents in order to exercise that permission -- and that's a feature, not a bug.

It's amazing to me that a whole group of posters to this thread have somehow come to sign-on to this completely imaginary limitation that they want to impose on the permissions system, which has been operating as-is for years. If there really are multiple people harboring this delusion, one is compelled to credit whatever Svengali fomented this hysteria.

[Anaiya Arnold]

My point which you are responding to is that the TOS is unclear, not that such items are against the rules, so in you are the one arguing about matters besides the point that I was making.  What would happen to such an item proves nothing whatsoever about the clarify of the TOS which was my only point.

 

I've no idea where in the multiple documents that constitute the TOS that I read about the permissions system.

 

@Qie: I've never known simply discussing the clarity of a document to be described as hysteria before, but if you wish to get all over excited and way over react to a mere suggestion that something might be ambiguous, it's your heart pressure level, not mine.

 

 

PS, PeachJubilee is my other account.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

@Qie: I've never known simply discussing the clarity of a document to be described as hysteria before, but if you wish to get all over excited and way over react to a mere suggestion that something might be ambiguous, it's your heart pressure level, not mine.

---

I would seriously like to see the part of the ToS that you say might be ambiguous. I couldn't find any form of words that were concerned with circumventing the permissions system.The permissions system does get mentioned a few times but there's nothing about circumventing it. You may have read something somewhere, but it's not in the ToS, and if it's not there then the argument that it may be against the ToS is a non-starter.

[Telexa Gabardini]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Anaiya Arnold wrote:

@Qie: I've never known simply discussing the clarity of a document to be described as hysteria before, but if you wish to get all over excited and way over react to a mere suggestion that something might be ambiguous, it's your heart pressure level, not mine.

---

I would seriously like to see the part of the ToS that you say might be ambiguous. I couldn't find any form of words that were concerned with circumventing the permissions system.The permissions system does get mentioned a few times but there's nothing about circumventing it. You may have read something somewhere, but it's not in the ToS, and if it's not there then the argument that it may be against the ToS is a non-starter.

---

 

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Permission

Right of First Sale

The right of first sale applies when an item is transferred without next owner copy. Since you are allowed to specify no derivative works by specifying next owner cannot modify, this right is interpreted as next owner can always transfer that single instance of the item to anyone else.

 



 

[Qie Niangao]

First off, that's an unofficial page in the wiki, not a Linden official page.  Anybody can edit it, and indeed several non-Lindens have done so, although the cited text was written by Phoenix Linden in 2007.  Perhaps it is somewhere referenced from the ToS, I don't know, but it's certainly not part of the ToS.

None of which matters because it is clearly describing how one can go about specifying this "right of first sale" if one wants it to apply to one's creations. It's simply explaining the way Transfer / No-Copy permissions work, not saying that all No-Copy items must be transferable, any more than it says that all transferable items must be No-Copy.

[Melita Magic]

So, all this because you can't resell the product you bought?

Why was being transfer ever important to you to begin with?

ETA: The prim is modify. You can still change the prim. Scripts usually are no modify. It doesn't take a genius to understand why.

The product still functions, you just can't resell it. Isn't that the only change? 

When you bought the newer 'upgraded' version are you saying they didn't tell you what permissions the product would have? Or they advertised one set and sent a different set of permissions when the product arrived?

Just doesn't seem that serious to me, really. Not worth all this drama. That isn't even taking into account the rest of it which everyone else has more than sufficiently addressed.

[Phil Deakins]

What Qie said. Plus it says nothing about users not being allowed to "circumvent the permissions system".

So we have the answer. There is nothing in the ToS about "circumventing the permissions system", so there's nothing that could be open to interpretation, or "ambiguous" as someone put it, and that particular discussion was wholly unnecessary. That's it.

There ought to be a rule somewhere against circumventing the permissions on other people's objects but there's nothing at all against it in the ToS.

 

[Solar Legion]

There is a reason no one has bothered to send you a single, no permissions prim: Unless they are the original creator, it's not possible. This means nothing in terms of a product update stripping a purchase of permissions however: It's not against the ToS and it's quite ethical in specific areas of commerce.

Don't like it? Don't buy products with mandatory updates.

Don't like that option? Cancel your account. 

ETA: Hmm, while I wil leave the original text atanding, it would seem that Linden Lab has altered the permission system since 2006 - no matter, the point still stands that if it were against the ToS to create an object which has no permissions at all on it, then the permissions of an object's contents would be utterly ignored by the object as a whole for the purposes of transfer/copy/mod.

Since such is not the case ... You're still SOL - deal with it. 

[PeterCanessa Oh]

How many pages is this now?  And nothing new said since page 2.  You need some of this, people:

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/just-ignore-and-let-this-one-die/m-p/712239#M163

[161488303349]

nuuuu !!!!

i wants some ethical prims

say like: llSetPermissionsEthical(myprims)

jejejejejejjejeje (: