Perms bypassed?

[Neural Blankes]

Early in 2014, I had a small store in world where I sold several club related items.  One item group in particular was sold copy/mod/no-xfer.

Recently, one of these items showed up for sale at a yard-sale.  Using an alt, I was able to purchase and take the item.  It showed up in my inventory with the same perms I had sold it with.  Copy/Mod/no-xfer.

What I'm trying to understand is how the person that owned this item was able to resell it if it was no-transfer, and whether or not there is some way in which this user is bypassing the perms in order to resell other peoples items.

Is there some explanation for how this is done, and is it something that needs to be reported?

[markkemp]

Using an illegal copybot viewer probably.

Yes, definitely report it. The standard thing to do is file a DMCA notice to linden lab if you want them to take action.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Neural Blankes wrote:

Early in 2014, I had a small store in world where I sold several club related items.  One item group in particular was sold copy/mod/no-xfer.

Recently, one of these items showed up for sale at a yard-sale.  Using an alt, I was able to purchase and take the item.  It showed up in my inventory with the same perms I had sold it with.  Copy/Mod/no-xfer.

What I'm trying to understand is how the person that owned this item was able to resell it if it was no-transfer, and whether or not there is some way in which this user is bypassing the perms in order to resell other peoples items.

Is there some explanation for how this is done, and is it something that needs to be reported?

---

I'm curious about a few things.

Did the object contain scripts.

Who is listed as the creator now?

ETA, did you double check what the next owner permissions were on your original copy?

 

[Neural Blankes]

The object has a script in it, and the script was also copy/mod (a really simple script).

When I inspected the item via edit when it was on the yard sale, the perms showing on it were Transfer only, and the script showed as no-copy/no-mod/no-xfer.  When I bought the item with my alt, everything was "back to normal" in the inventory.  the whole thing, object and script, were copy/mod/no-xfer.

Also, from the time I first came across it, to where it is in my inventory now, it has always shown me as the creator.

The method of sale may be key to stopping this, if it's a hack, as the seller had to set the sale to "original" not "copy".  When I purchased it, I did not recieve the object in inventory until I right clicked on it and chose "take".

 

Thanks for the input.  

[Marianne Little]

Hm, first of all, the way of selling is totally normal for yard sales. One item is rezzed, and after buying it, you have to pick it up. No suspicious behavior there.

Second, rez the item and try to take a copy of it. When it is rezzed, inspect it and see what the permissions are.

I suspect this is a rather innocent glitch that I have experienced several times as a buyer. The item shows up in my inventory with correct permissions, but when rezzed or worn, the permissions is changed. I can't explain why since I am just a shopper, but I had to contact sellers several times and referring to this: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Debug_Permissions mostly because it's changed from mod to no mod.

Edited to add: And if it's transfer and no copy when rezzed on ground, then it is not infinite copies around. And the fault is probably yours, if you edited it in your inventory without doing the "Slam bit". It looks like the item has correct permissions. But only while the object is in your inventory. Once it's rezzed inworld, either by being worn or by being dropped on the ground, the permissions are changed. Please don't AR anybody before you rezzed and inspected it.

[Neural Blankes]

@Marianne: Right.  That I understand.  However I sold this item as copy/mod/no-xfer.  As I understand permissions, this should mean that another person can't give or sell the item to someone else.  Otherwise they just make a ton of copies and sell them. 

This item showed as transfer only on the table, but when bought and rezzed, it showed as copy/mod/no-transfer.

[Marianne Little]

Ah, so you have rezzed it inworld and took a copy of it? That is different.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Neural Blankes wrote:

The object has a script in it, and the script was also copy/mod (a really simple script).

When I inspected the item via edit when it was on the yard sale, the perms showing on it were Transfer only, and the script showed as no-copy/no-mod/no-xfer.  When I bought the item with my alt, everything was "back to normal" in the inventory.  the whole thing, object and script, were copy/mod/no-xfer.

Also, from the time I first came across it, to where it is in my inventory now, it has always shown me as the creator.

The method of sale may be key to stopping this, if it's a hack, as the seller had to set the sale to "original" not "copy".  When I purchased it, I did not recieve the object in inventory until I right clicked on it and chose "take".

 

Thanks for the input.  

---

A puzzling situation if you are certain of the original Perms. 

When you inspect an object it shows the next owner's perms which could account for what you saw.

Does every individual component just you as the creator, scripts included?

Trying to figure out what may have happenned here.

Copybot Viewers can only copy objects, not scripts. 

[Neural Blankes]

Yes.  The script is mine as well, same name and everything.

I've been going over this scenario in my head for a while, and every time I poke at different situations, the result comes up with something not being right.

I am very limited on what items I sell full-perms.  Usually I either go with copy/mod/no-trans, or trans-only (and that would account for very few items total).  I like buyers to be able to scale the things I make or change colors.

The item I sold this through was a copy of it.  Basically, you set the object out, set it to sell and choose "copy" for the action it takes when someone purchases.  This vendor, is copy/mod/no-xfer.

Even in the event that I sold it as transfer-only, the one I recieved/picked-up was copy/mod. 

Every way I look at it, the perms have been changed or circumvented.

[Sassy Romano]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Copybot Viewers can only copy objects, not scripts. 

---

Although I was once passed a pair of Stiletto Moody's which were full perm to transfer but when rezzed showed the correct permissions, they also contained scripts which were no mod and with the correct creator but could also be transferred.

However it was done, the exploit happened.

(I didn't keep them, I had the shoes legally anyway but it was definitely an eyebrow raiser)

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Copybot Viewers can only copy objects, not scripts. 

---

Although I was once passed a pair of Stiletto Moody's which were full perm to transfer but when rezzed showed the correct permissions, they also contained scripts which were no mod and with the correct creator but could also be transferred.

However it was done, the exploit happened.

(I didn't keep them, I had the shoes legally anyway but it was definitely an eyebrow raiser)

---

I'm not saying it didn't happen.

And it would not be the first time an SL glitch occurred.

But sometimes the exact details can be a giveaway to what really happenned.

So we ask.

 

ETA, You and I know the tricks of the trade that Copy Botters use.  But that is something I refuse to say publically.  I do not want to take any resonsibility for passing that information on.

 

[Qie Niangao]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

But sometimes the exact details can be a giveaway to what really happenned. 

---

That's the thing. As described, the behavior of the object is at odds with how we all understand the permissions system -- including when operations are performed on it by the OP here, never mind what may have caused the object to start behaving in this inexplicable way.

I've never actually seen a case of this that didn't turn out to be a confused report of normal "slam bit" operation. This time, however, that would be at odds with several details in the report.

If anyone can explain how the permissions system can even support the reported behavior, then and only then should we start thinking about whether some sort of exploit triggered it. Otherwise this needs to be filed as a jira, with extreme attention to every detail of this object's magically changing permissions, to make absolutely clear that this isn't just another slam bit surprise, nor the usual confusion about how content permissions are summarized in Inventory, and how content permissions are hidden from non-owners of rezzed objects (some of which confuses the report in this thread).

Oh, and also, that jira would need the full Debug Permissions detail, already mentioned.above, at each stage of the object's weird transitions. In fact, we probably need those here, too, if there's any hope of understanding what's going on.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

But sometimes the exact details can be a giveaway to what really happenned. 

---

That's the thing. As described, the behavior of the object is at odds with how we all understand the permissions system -- including when operations are performed on it by the OP here, never mind what may have caused the object to start behaving in this inexplicable way.

I've never actually seen a case of this that didn't turn out to be a confused report of normal "slam bit" operation. This time, however, that would be at odds with several details in the report.

If anyone can explain how the permissions system can even

support

the reported behavior, then and only then should we start thinking about whether some sort of exploit triggered it. Otherwise this needs to be filed as a jira, with extreme attention to every detail of this object's magically changing permissions, to make absolutely clear that this isn't just another slam bit surprise, nor the usual confusion about how content permissions are summarized in Inventory, and how content permissions are hidden from non-owners of rezzed objects (some of which confuses the report in this thread).

Oh, and also, that jira would need the full

Debug Permissions

 detail, already mentioned.above, at each stage of the object's weird transitions. In fact, we probably need those here, too, if there's any hope of understanding what's going on.

---

I had started to write that if the OP was certain of all these facts that they needed to file a JIRA but changed my post before posting.  I would have even included the location where I bought it, the time as close as I could remember, etc, etc.  Very exacting detail.

Copybot does not make sense here for this reason:  While I know at least one way the object could have been reproduced with the original creator's name on it to then do what the OP described would be silly.  A copybotter doesn't do all this work to sell just one copy.  They want to sell multiple copies.  And actually I think the OP's description of what happenned rules out the method I know.

 

[Vivienne Schell]

Just for clarification:

1 Who is the creator of the object you bought? You or someone else?

2. Who is the creator of the script you bought? You or someone else?

3. When you rez the original, which permissions are set IN-WORLD (in rezzed state)?

4. When you rez the original, is "Anyone can take a copy" enabled?

Four simple questions which require simple answers for any kind of judgement,