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

[stony Woodford]

Hey all,

 

Well without need of a name or link i can deduce which product or collection of products and services this is in regards to, and which SL company sells and provides such services. And i completely agree they are making changes in there external servors all the time often to there own ends and to fuel there own greed. Wwhich i beleive once said Items are sold with the permisions they are sold in should remain that way any change after such made by the creator by using there external servor i would think breaks the rules of TOS. As it is both fraudulant and basicly theft from users and owners alike, now without mentioning names or product i have heard a few people who have put questions across to bothe directors and CEO of the company and in responce have been barred from the ATMs they rightfully bought or have right of use to as owners or as atm onwers clients or users, making it impossible for them to withdraw there lindons rightfully earned or won. 

 

I would say this is theft of its lowest form, and very very bad business ethics for such a large and well known SL company and i beleive LL should have those external servors made to be shut down and the company investigated by the LAW as they are stealing, Lieing and falsly advertising there product there may be no mod no trans and no copy which is fine but once someone buys it after reading the agreemnet and its functions any changes made by the creating company there-after to it via there servors should have fair warning and they need to ask permission or hold a vote with there customers to make said changes so all are aware f them and not shocked when ther actually losing money hard earned by the mis direction fo the compny.

[stony Woodford]

As a Inworld business owner we believe our clients should feel
safe in the knowledge that what we ensure that all our creations and systems have inworld servers supporting them. After all if its for SL it should stay in SL, including our advertising products.

If anyone feels that they have no control products or marketing they are welcome to contact us inworld and we will happily assist in whatever way we can.

Stony Woodford
CEO, Real Vision Inc

[RagDoll Lemon]

My OP was about the ethics of a product and rather or not such a violation of ethics is against TOS.   If someone buys a land parcel from a private estate owner and pays for 2 months in advance and then the owner shuts down the sim and keeps the rent, we should tell that person "Gosh sorry its only $15, get a life!"?!?   In that example, multiple people would have been taken for a ride and the person simply repeats the land scam with an alt.  Is that ethical and is it against TOS?  I do believe the answer is yes based on previous posts in the forum.

I suppose LL can't fix that problem either?   Yes this is a crusade.  It would be nice if there was a better mechinism within the LL properties to lay out our case but there is not.  AR's are being ignored.  Landowners are being cheated.

Rag Doll

[Rival Destiny]

Well of course the OP's questions have been answered.

Ethics is a judgement call, not a fact.  And selling an item with no permissions is NOT against TOS, this is a fact.

Answer #1 - You will get those that agree and those that disagree regarding the ethics of selling an item no permissions.

Answer #2 - It isn't against TOS to sell an item that has no permissions.  This is a fact.

 

Edited to correct my wording - should be no permissions not full permissions.

 

 

[Britneyheat]

The item isn't full perm, its not even copyable which for the life of me can't figure out why, they can't sell it as a copyable item, unless they want you to lose it in your inventory so you can buy another one and make even more money of you.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

*tries to count sock and/or meat puppets and gives up*

A seller can put any perms he/she wants on an item.

Fin.

[Prokofy Neva]

Ethical?

What are you talking about?

Of course it's ethical. An content creator can set any permissions he likes.

If you are worried about not being able to re-sell a $4000 item then....don't buy it.

It's perfectly legal to set all three permission to "no".

The idea that there is some physical limitation or TOS prescription against this is wrong.

Any creator can set those three boxes as he likes.

[Prokofy Neva]

Then don't buy it if you don't like it. It's a free market.

[Rival Destiny]

 

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

My OP was about the ethics of a product and rather or not such a violation of ethics is against TOS.   If someone buys a land parcel from a private estate owner and pays for 2 months in advance and then the owner shuts down the sim and keeps the rent, we should tell that person "Gosh sorry its only $15, get a life!"?!?   In that example, multiple people would have been taken for a ride and the person simply repeats the land scam with an alt.  Is that ethical and is it against TOS?  I do believe the answer is yes based on previous posts in the forum.

I suppose LL can't fix that problem either?   Yes this is a crusade.  It would be nice if there was a better mechinism within the LL properties to lay out our case but there is not.  AR's are being ignored.  Landowners are being cheated.

Rag Doll

---

 

 

You are comparing apples and potatoes here.

You inquired about the ethics of selling a product no permissions and whether no permissions is against TOS.

How is this, in any way, the equivalent of ripping someone off?

Now if you are saying that the vendor/creator of this 'product' is stealing/ripping people off, then you should be filing a ticket with LL. 

From what has been said, this product has a group with over 5k members.  If the product is stealing/ripping them off, then I'm sure they would all be filing AR's with LL.

 

[Prokofy Neva]

Why use traffic gimmicks? Sales make sales, traffic doesn't make sales.

Sounds like a rip-off.

Work to make your atmosphere, socializing, content compelling and don't use gimmicks.

Camp chairs or anything that pays out like that to generate traffic are now illegal under the TOS anyway so the Lindens may remove it.

[Rival Destiny]

Yes sorry, I made a typo there.  Should have read no permissions not full permission.

I have edited my comment.

[Britneyheat]

Its not camping, but this product or system is kind of replacement to the banned camping systems in the grid, as a way to generate the traffic, think of it like camping but its called something else, You have a owner that has a "camping like object" (its not a camping system) and you have people who camp or earn lindens by using the object but replace the "Camp" word with something else and you get the idea. The additional thing is the middle man with a server that provides the traffic to the shop or club owner. There has also has been talk that this system might be a Gambling System which may need Linden Labs to check into as well.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

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. 

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Britneyheat wrote:

Its not camping, but this product or system is kind of replacement to the banned camping systems in the grid, as a way to generate the traffic, think of it like camping but its called something else, You have a owner that has a "camping like object" (its not a camping system) and you have people who camp or earn lindens by using the object but replace the "Camp" word with something else and you get the idea. The additional thing is the middle man with a server that provides the traffic to the shop or club owner. There has also has been talk that this system might be a Gambling System which may need Linden Labs to check into as well.

---

if it is gaming traffic it is against the TOS..if it is gambling it is against the TOS..

camping is only one way to game traffic..

if you feel these are against the TOS then AR them..that's how you get LL to check into your findings..

they won't really see or understand what you guys are saying from this thread..

 

 

 

[RagDoll Lemon]

---

Rival Destiny wrote:

 

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

My OP was about the ethics of a product and rather or not such a violation of ethics is against TOS.   If someone buys a land parcel from a private estate owner and pays for 2 months in advance and then the owner shuts down the sim and keeps the rent, we should tell that person "Gosh sorry its only $15, get a life!"?!?   In that example, multiple people would have been taken for a ride and the person simply repeats the land scam with an alt.  Is that ethical and is it against TOS?  I do believe the answer is yes based on previous posts in the forum.

I suppose LL can't fix that problem either?   Yes this is a crusade.  It would be nice if there was a better mechinism within the LL properties to lay out our case but there is not.  AR's are being ignored.  Landowners are being cheated.

Rag Doll

---

You are comparing apples and potatoes here.

You inquired about the ethics of selling a product no permissions and whether no permissions is against TOS.

How is this, in any way, the equivalent of ripping someone off?

Now if you are saying that the vendor/creator of this 'product' is stealing/ripping people off, then you should be filing a ticket with LL. 

From what has been said, this product has a group with over 5k members.  If the product is stealing/ripping them off, then I'm sure they would all be filing AR's with LL.

 

---

I've already stated that ARs have been filed and ignored.   And I don't think my comparison is that far off base.  Particularly when older versions of products are made disfunctional by the external servers they talk to forcing the buyer to upgrade to a working version only to discover that the updated product's perms have been changed to nocopy, notransfer.  That seems fishy to me.

Rag Doll

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

I've already stated that ARs have been filed and ignored.

---

That should tell you something.

[RagDoll Lemon]

---

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. 

 

---

Yes, but when the creator forces a product upgrade the removes the original permissions the product was sold under and also disables the earlier version from working with the external server, I believe the fine gray line between creater's rights and buyer's rights has been crossed.

[RagDoll Lemon]

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

I've already stated that ARs have been filed and ignored.

---

That should tell you something.

---

Yep.  It tells me to make more noise in more places until heard! :smileyvery-happy:

[Griffin Ceawlin]

... or that it's not an ARable offense?

P.S. If it's the company/product I think it is... It all seemed like a scam to me from the first time I heard of it. ETA: And you bought into it, "hook, line and sinker." "Expensive" lesson, maybe, but doubt there's much you can do about it.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

RagDoll

Lemon wrote:

---

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. 

 

---

Yes, but when the creator forces a product upgrade the removes the original permissions the product was sold under and also disables the earlier version from working with the external server, I believe the fine gray line between

creater's

rights and buyer's rights has been crossed.

---

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?

 

[161488303349]

it gets worse

i have a sl kitten (had). if i dont feed it then it extorts me to go and buy it food. if i dont do that the kitten gets sick and lies down and moans pitifully and says i am a bad person in the chat

i end giving it a nice funeral with flowers and everything

[Peggy Paperdoll]

Let me see if I'm putting this all together after reading all your (and your alt's) comments and clarififications.  You purchased this mysterious product (that has a group of some 5000+ attached to it) that promised you increase your business.  This product does not game traffic but somehow it increases your traffic....which, I assume, you think would increase your business.  How this works, I gather, is by some external website.  However, when you purchased the product it didn't work as you thought it would and found that if you "upgraded" it would work for your needs........then when you upgraded the permissions had changed (how that relates to a legitmate use of a product escapes me).

What that leads me to believe is that you wanted to "game" the traffic system with some product that went around LL's ToS rules governing gaming traffic.  In other words you were actually seeking to get around the ToS using this product.....all for your gain.  But, this product didn't do anything to increase your traffic (or, at least, not what you expected).  And you feel ripped off?  Isn't that a lot like those TV commercials telling you how you can make millions selling real estate...all you need to do is call 1-800-555-1212 right now, operators are waiting.  And to have your credit card handy for the $19.95 (plus shipping and handling) for the DVD.  But, wait..........if you call within the next 10 minutes, we'll enclose a 2 carat diamond necklace.

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.

[RagDoll Lemon]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

RagDoll

Lemon wrote:

---

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. 

 

---

Yes, but when the creator forces a product upgrade the removes the original permissions the product was sold under and also disables the earlier version from working with the external server, I believe the fine gray line between

creater's

rights and buyer's rights has been crossed.

---

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.  

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

If this 'mystery product'  relies on a connection to an external server for it's continued functionality then your purchase would include the item itself, and ongoing access to the online service upon which it relies.  When signing up for an online service it's always a good idea to read the terms of that service, and failure to do so for whatever reason is rarely considered the fault of the provider.

If you were aware that connection to the service was required for functionality but didn't review the TOS prior to purchase to see whether that service was subject to change without notifications, etc. you really don't have much recourse if you consider the product/service to no longer be satisfactory, other than to simply stop using it.

As for changing the permissions of the product you purchased, according to this post

 

---

RagDoll Lemon wrote:

Particularly when older versions of products are made disfunctional by the external servers they talk to forcing the buyer to upgrade to a working version only to discover that the updated product's perms have been changed to nocopy, notransfer.

---

the permissions of the product itself didn't change, it's just that the newer version which is required for continued use of the online service doesn't have the same permissions as the version you originally purchased.  Once again, most online services are "subject to change", and insisting that a creator selling you a product with one set of perms is some sort of verbal contract guaranteeing you the same perms on future versions of the same or similar products is silly!  What's next, suing LL because you can't connect to SL using viewer 1.1 anymore?

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

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?