Resell when its ok

[Lilie Foxtrot]

OK so there is a lot of people in sl that do the resell thing ok no big deal now lets say you just bought a fullperm something ok now theres no notecard in there that says you cant resell it blah blah is it still ok to resell fullperm things that dont say you cant its not hurting TOS or anything and if you find this ok should people IM you crying like 2yearolds that you are reselling a friends thing or what ever mind you not the maker but a friend.

Now i dont see a prob with it if its fullperm and you dont have anything anywhere saying DONT RESELL MY THINGS DONT MAKE THEM INTO A RESELL KIT BLAH BLAH but i wanna know what you all think

[Irene Muni]

There is a long thread about that: http://blogs.secondlife.com/message/182382#182382

Apparently yes, you can resell. The Transfer permission is"Resell/Give away". If the creator gave Transfer permission he/she marked "Resell/Give away"

But see in that thread a possible problem: a creator give a object full perm WHIT a notecard forbidden resell, and other resident give thar object WITHOUT the notecard.

[Trin Trevellion]

I agree with Irene. Items TOS/note cards are getting lost very fast. From my personal point of view it's not appropriate to resell any full permission content without the consent of the original creator. There are many examples like the rich contribution of full permission items by Arcadia Asylum, what makes SL a better place and I respect such creator very much. In this case, it's definitely not permitted to resell it. Reseller of freebies make SL worse and btw. the permission system of SL has nothing to do with Intellectual Property Rights. In fact, you need an affirmation that you can legally resell content and not the other way around. Read at least http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php#tos7 (7.8 You agree to respect the Intellectual Property Rights of other users, Linden Lab, and third parties.).

ps: yes, I take this very serious

[Jalina Clary]

In my opinion, if you are in doubt, you always have the moral obligation to contact the maker to make sure this full perm item is indeed intended to be used as you like.

You can argue, like many others, that when an item is full perm, the maker has lost every right to it. I do not agree

You do not know how that full perm item got spread. It could be the maker who distributed it, or it could be the former trusted partner or friend that decided to turn on the maker. Yeah, yeah, I know, I have heard all the arguments about stupidity, own fault etc

If you want to make money on other peoples work, you do have a moral obligation to find out if you can. Unless you really couldn't care one bit about right or wrong

Your own sense of morals will answer the question for you

[Suella Ember]

Jalina Clary wrote:

 

In my opinion, if you are in doubt, you always have the moral obligation to contact the maker to make sure this full perm item is indeed intended to be used as you like.

You can argue, like many others, that when an item is full perm, the maker has lost every right to it. I do not agree

You do not know how that full perm item got spread. It could be the maker who distributed it, or it could be the former trusted partner or friend that decided to turn on the maker. Yeah, yeah, I know, I have heard all the arguments about stupidity, own fault etc

If you want to make money on other peoples work, you do have a moral obligation to find out if you can. Unless you really couldn't care one bit about right or wrong

Your own sense of morals will answer the question for you

Quite simply, THIS ^

[Rygel Ryba]

If it were up to me, I would like to see some sort of general rule of "You can't sell something with full permits unless you are the creator of it and all elements of it."

The biggest issue in all of this is player 1 buys something full perm and sells it full perm to player 2 who in turn lowers the price and sells it full perm to player 3. This is how things devalue and how the creators lose out.

If, on the other hand, I made something full perm and SL only allowed you to give things or sell things that had either No Copy or No Transfer unless you are the original creator of it - it would help a lot. That way - sure, there might be a lot of different people selling the full perm things I made, and the price would come down - but the price comes down based upon the number of people who bought it from ME, the creator. Not the number of people who managed to buy it from the guy selling it at half price of me.

So, I think maybe a petition is in order... if you made the object you can sell it full perm. If you didn't, SL will allow you to check COPY or TRANSFER, but not both. There is a trick there though - because it would have to scan contents and the textures on it - and I'm not sure the system can handle that - at least not at this point. It would be an awesome solution, though. Things would still get resold, probably - but not full perm and thus, our full perm creations always retain their original full perm value.

[Natlia Beresford]

The SL permissions system is too simplistic for what it tries to be. Builders who use full perm do so with very different intentions:

• resell, but don't give away
• give away, but don't resell
• resell/give away with reduced permissions only
• resell/give away full perm only
• any of the above other than "don't resell", but pay X L$ or Y % to the author for every sale

So unless you like it when people get angry at you, you should obey the notecard, and contact the author if there is no notecard. It's unclear to me if it is legally required to obey the notecard - we all give Linden Labs permission to copy and display our works, and it could be argued that it's not you but Linden Labs doing the copying, which would mean those terms in the notecard are void.

Note that there are quite a few full perm items around that have been copybotted from reduced perm items - for those it's impossible to contact the real author, because SL will show the copybot user as author.

Also, assuming you're not looking at a copybotted item. you need to use "inspect" to determine who the real author is, since SL will otherwise show you the creator of the root prim (or the person who last linked the whole thing, I'm not sure). Adding an invisible prim is an old trick to pretend you made something you did not make.

Writing these copy permission notecards can be quite a challenge... Recently I accidentally claimed copyright of two textures from the library. Fortunately I could fix it before any sales.