Real State Cons

[ChinRey]

---

JenWartooth wrote:

Really!!!!  You wouldn't know were any of these so called honest realtors are hiding.

---

My land is themed so it may not be suitable for everybody. But if what you want to make fits the theme (British small town/rural), contact me and we'll see if we can find room for it.

Two other serious realtors I wouldn't hesitate tor ecommend are Beethros Karas and Prokofy Neva.

[JenWartooth]

I am glad to read I am not alone on this matter.  My last encounter with a realtor was I paid them and did not get anything.   They claim the L$ I sent was  a  gift.   

[Qie Niangao]

---

JenWartooth wrote:

They claim the L$ I sent was  a  gift.   

---

What the heck is going on here? Not asking for their name, but: Why would any SL land-related business be set up such that customers would ever need to send L$ directly, rather than either paying a rental box or buying a parcel? How did you even find such a business??

(Admittedly, I've had pretty much the same few Mainland tenants since about 2006, so I'm not up to date on practices in this industry, but still, why would things have gotten so much more primitive in the past decade?)

[Pamela Galli]

Consumers can choose to reject the advice to caveat emptor -- but it will be at their own expense.

I would think after being allegedly burned once, or twice, there would be no third time.

And what a coincidence that all three landlords behaved the same way, including saying the money was a gift.

Really?

[CassieMaia]

If you're buying a mainland parcel, often time the seller leaves their builds on the land until it is sold.  However, that does not necessarily mean that they are selling the parcel PLUS the build.  When you are on a parcel that is for sale, and look at the About Land, you can see whether "Objects Included in Sale" or "Objects not included in Sale".   If objects are included in the sale, I believe that the objects need to be transferable, and unless they are objects created by the seller, if they are not transferable that is not something the seller can change.  

If you are 'buying' land from a private estate, it is more likely that the objects will be included if they are already on the parcel, as you are really leasing the land from the estate owner and many estates offer landscaped parcels, some including houses.  However, there may be more restrictions on an estate as to what you can or can't do with the estate provided items - these will be provided in their covenant which is generally accessible before you make a purchase or pay a rental box. 

Caledon Oxbridge University offers a very good class on buying land and it covers many of the things to look out for.  It's a free class - I think it's offered at 5 pm on Fridays. 

[Shudo]

---

ChinRey wrote:

---

JenWartooth wrote:

Really!!!!  You wouldn't know were any of these so called honest realtors are hiding.

---

My land is themed so it may not be suitable for everybody. But if what you want to make fits the theme (British small town/rural), contact me and we'll see if we can find room for it.

Two other serious realtors I wouldn't hesitate tor ecommend are Beethros Karas and Prokofy Neva.

---

I agree, Jen would be a perfect tenant for Prokofy Neva.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

CassieMaia wrote:

...

If you are 'buying' land from a private estate, it is more likely that the objects will be included if they are already on the parcel, as you are really leasing the land from the estate owner and many estates offer landscaped parcels, some including houses.  However, there may be more restrictions on an estate as to what you can or can't do with the estate provided items - these will be provided in their covenant which is generally accessible before you make a purchase or pay a rental box. 

...

---

 

Actually in my experience, it is rare that objects are included on an estate parcel when you buy it.  Usually the objects may stay, but ownership is not transferred and you are right that there are restrictions on what you can and can't do with them.  After all, if you own them there are no restrictions.

There are a few exceptions of course, but as you point out the sales information in About Land clearly states this.

[CassieMaia]

Yes, you're right about objects generally not being transferred if they stay on an estate parcel.  I wasn't clear enough - I was thinking of the estates which include landscaping of the parcel, and the landscaping items are not transferred to you, but may remain for your use. 

[ChinRey]

---

CassieMaia wrote:

Yes, you're right about objects generally not being transferred if they stay on an estate parcel.  I wasn't clear enough - I was thinking of the estates which include landscaping of the parcel, and the landscaping items are not transferred to you, but may remain for your use. 

---

What ? Is that a common practise among land dealers?

There are lots of content creators who would be very interested in learning more about that and figuring out how to stop it. Seems we'll have to start adding detailed EULAs to our no-transfer objects too.

[Freya Mokusei]

I.. think she means that there are some folks who simply leave behind the landscaping items parked on 'border' parcels using root-point manipulation. I've seen regions with palm trees running along borders, for example.

I don't think it's unreasonable to use assets in this way. They're not being copied, why would an EULA be necessary? It sounds like Cassie's grasp of functionality is loose.

[ChinRey]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I.. think she means that there are some folks who simply leave behind the landscaping items parked on 'border' parcels using root-point manipulation. I've seen regions with palm trees running along borders, for example.

---

I suppose she'll have to clarify then, The way I understood her, she was talking about landscaping a parcel with no-transfer items and then sell it with the landscaping items included in the deal. That is not acceptable of course and if it's commonly done, it's something creators of landscape items simply have to do something about.

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

...

why would an EULA be necessary?

---

My own EULA actually does cover this. For no-transfer items it says:

"You do *not* have permission to distribute it in any way (This includes rezzing copies of the item on other people's land for other people's use!) or use it in any way outside Second Life."

But to be honest, I always thought of it as a silly formality. It never occurred to me that it might actually be necessary to tell buyers something as obvious as that.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

ChinRey wrote:

That is not acceptable of course

---

Huh. Well colour me surprised. This sounds perfectly permissable - one sale is one sale, the merchant doesn't get to control where I rez things I buy (so long as it remains within Second Life, anyway).

I wouldn't be interested in accepting the kind of EULA you describe, and never have done. Hopefully any land-folks are operating the way I do too.

I appreciate your perspective, but guess I'll need to look closely! This weirdness is all news to me.

[Qie Niangao]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote: Well colour me surprised.

---

Me too -- so much so that I wonder if we're somehow miscommunicating, or maybe we're missing the joke?

Consider another case: Suppose I'm in a group that owns land where multiple group members rez landscaping items. Now one of the members leaves the group -- heck, leaves Second Life altogether, or shuffles off this mortal coil in RL. They're gone now, yet their items remain on the group land where they left them.

Is the group obligated to watch the obits and rip out any member's content when they kick the bucket?

Honestly, I don't see any group obligation to object sellers at all under this circumstance -- even if the group later sells-off the pre-landscaped land -- and if the seller wants to take the deceased's estate to court, good luck with that.

[ChinRey]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I appreciate your perspective, but guess I'll need to look closely! This weirdness is all news to me.

---

Really?

Think of ti this way then:

A content creator spends a week making an absolutely wonderful mesh tree and sells it Copy/Modify on MP for 250 Lindens.

Somebody buys the tree, and rezzes a few copies of it on his land. His friends likes the tree so much they ask him to rez a few copies on their land too. Then he starts buiyng parcels, adding the tree to it (and probably other landscape items too) and selling them again with a profit because of the lovely trees on the parcel.

Soon hudreds and even thousands of people have that tree on their and the creator earns 250 Linden from that single sale.

When you buy a no-transfer item, you buy the right to use it yourself, personally and for your own public projects in SL. You do not ahve the right to give it away or sell it in any way. Rezzing on other people's land for other people to use is just a sneaky way to circumvent this limitation and it essentially makes the whole concept of no-transfer items meaningless.

I know it's impossible to enforce the no-transfer rule hundred precent. It's easy to overlook an item or two that shouldn't be there and there may well be forgotten items from previous tenants on my own land. We have to accept that. But there is a long way from there to wibespread, deliberate violations of the intentions of the permission system.

 

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I wouldn't be interested in accepting the kind of EULA you describe, and never have done. Hopefully any land-folks are operating the way I do too.

---

In that case, buy full perm. If you give away no-transfer items on purpose (regardless of whether they still "officially" are owned by you), your're a thief, nothing but a thief.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ChinRey wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I.. think she means that there are some folks who simply leave behind the landscaping items parked on 'border' parcels using root-point manipulation. I've seen regions with palm trees running along borders, for example.

---

I suppose she'll have to clarify then, The way I understood her, she was talking about landscaping a parcel with no-transfer items and then sell it with the landscaping items included in the deal. That is not acceptable of course and if it's commonly done, it's something creators of landscape items simply have to do something about.

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

...

why would an EULA be necessary?

---

My own EULA actually does cover this. For no-transfer items it says:

"You do *not* have permission to distribute it in any way (This includes rezzing copies of the item on other people's land for other people's use!) or use it in any way outside Second Life."

But to be honest, I always thought of it as a silly formality. It never occurred to me that it might actually be necessary to tell buyers something as obvious as that.

---

I have never owned land in SL and I have never restricted access to the places I've designed. That makes it highly unlikely I'd ever purchase anything with the EULA restrictions you've described.

I have no-copy/no-transfer dance balls that I routinely rez at parties so people can dance with me. I also routinely rez fun objects for others to use, like the cannon that hurls people into trees. These would violate the letter of your EULA (though probably not the spirit).

During my first year in SL, I lived on a small corner of a friend's sim, getting that bit of land in exchange for helping with scripts and thorny construction issues as they built out the rest of their public dreamscape. I routinely contributed objects to transient collaborative creations across their sim. It was wonderful, and would be precluded by your EULA.

I shared an island with someone for a couple years, and created a small living space for a mutual friend. I did not own the island and that little space was explicitly made for use by someone else. Again, a violation of your EULA.

I have participated in builds at SL birthday bashes, public art displays, building contests, and show-and-tells. I think all of those run afoul of your EULA.

I understand what you're trying to avoid, but think your EULA is too blunt for the job.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

ChinRey wrote:

Soon

hudreds and even thousands

of people have that tree on their and the creator earns 250 Linden from that single sale.

---

Really? Are these non-hyperbolic numbers? Has there ever been a real case of anyone doing this in more than a dozen places?

I'm not denying this happens in limited quantities, but the amount of hysteria generated seems unwarranted.

I don't buy your argument, sorry. I've heard it before in other spheres (never in SL), it wasn't realistic then either.

---

ChinRey wrote:

If you give away no-transfer items on purpose (regardless of whether they still "officially" are owned by you), your're a thief, nothing but a thief.

---

Nah, disagree. If there ever was a commercial operation with the specific intent of reducing your sales and improving the "thief's" reputation or L$ balance, maybe, MAYBE I'd have some sympathy for this perspective. Has that ever happened to you? Or I suppose, have you ever found anyone replicating your objects amongst their friends AND successfully used moderation processes to have them removed? I am genuinely curious, but you don't have to tell me - I'm not intending to make you a target, you're a symptom of a condition that I'm trying to understand the depth of.

My opinion though, is that you're probably just calling a lot of people who like your work - and want to use it as freely as allowed by the SL permissions system - criminals for no reason. I don't see any benefit in this approach, but if you do then good luck to you.

The person who buys a lawnchair, rezzes it on his partner's parcel (as well as his own) so that they can enjoy time fishing together - is he a thief? The clubowner who buys a dancepole and rezzes one at their home, one at the staff audition location, and one at the actual club - are they thieves?

--

I've seen plenty of organisations try to inflict nonsensical terms on perfectly reasonable people - this is what the EULA argument sounds like to me. Doesn't hold water, not based in reality, not enforceable, it just casts criminal suspicion on ordinary folks and sets creators against their fanbases.

Skip!

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

ChinRey wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I appreciate your perspective, but guess I'll need to look closely! This weirdness is all news to me.

---

Really?

Think of ti this way then:

A content creator spends a week making an absolutely wonderful mesh tree and sells it Copy/Modify on MP for 250 Lindens.

Somebody buys the tree, and rezzes a few copies of it on his land. His friends likes the tree so much they ask him to rez a few copies on their land too. Then he starts buiyng parcels, adding the tree to it (and probably other landscape items too) and selling them again with a profit because of the lovely trees on the parcel.

Soon hudreds and even thousands of people have that tree on their and the creator earns 250 Linden from that single sale.

When you buy a no-transfer item, you buy the right to use it yourself, personally and for your own public projects in SL. You do not ahve the right to give it away or sell it in any way. Rezzing on other people's land for other people to use is just a sneaky way to circumvent this limitation and it essentially makes the whole concept of no-transfer items meaningless.

I know it's impossible to enforce the no-transfer rule hundred precent. It's easy to overlook an item or two that shouldn't be there and there may well be forgotten items from previous tenants on my own land. We have to accept that. But there is a long way from there to wibespread, deliberate violations of the intentions of the permission system.

 

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I wouldn't be interested in accepting the kind of EULA you describe, and never have done. Hopefully any land-folks are operating the way I do too.

---

In that case, buy full perm. If you give away no-transfer items on purpose (regardless of whether they still "officially" are owned by you), your're a thief, nothing but a thief.

---

What if own a sim and develop it into a little town with 50 rental units? I needn't sell the sim to reap the benefits of replicating no-transfer objects. The attractiveness of the rental units may be largely due to the replication of no-transfer items I've purchased from others.

Again, I understand the problem, but wonder if there's a better solution.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

ChinRey wrote:

Soon

hudreds and even thousands

of people have that tree on their and the creator earns 250 Linden from that single sale.

---

Really? Are these non-hyperbolic numbers? Has there ever been a

real

case of anyone doing this in more than a dozen places?

I'm not denying this happens in limited quantities, but the amount of hysteria generated seems unwarranted.

I don't buy your argument, sorry. I've heard it before in other spheres (never in SL), it wasn't realistic then either.

---

ChinRey wrote:

If you give away no-transfer items on purpose (regardless of whether they still "officially" are owned by you), your're a thief, nothing but a thief.

---

Nah, disagree. If there ever was a commercial operation with the specific intent of reducing your sales and improving the "thief's" reputation or L$ balance, maybe, MAYBE I'd have some sympathy for this perspective.

My opinion though, is that you're

probably

just calling a lot of people who like your work - and want to use it as freely as allowed by the SL permissions system - criminals for no reason. I don't see

any

benefit in this approach, but if you do then good luck to you.

The person who buys a lawnchair, rezzes it on his partner's parcel (as well as his own) so that they can enjoy time fishing together - is he a

thief

? The clubowner who buys a dancepole and rezzes one at their home, one at the staff audition location, and one at the actual club - are they

thieves

?

--

I've seen plenty of organisations try to inflict nonsensical terms on perfectly reasonable people - this is what the EULA argument sounds like to me. Doesn't hold water, not enforceable, it just casts criminal suspicion on ordinary folks.

Skip!

---

Yep, most of my SL life has involved violating the letter of ChinRey's EULA. There are just too many valid use cases that fun afoul of it. And when that happens with rules, reasonable people will ignore them.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

reasonable people will ignore them.

---

Ya. And once this happens, the precedent that makes EULAs enforceable at all erodes.

Folks can't just write whatever terms they like into EULAs and then complain when paying customers reasonable expectations diverge from this. Plenty of cases in real life law set this standard.

This attempted overreach doesn't surprise me, what does surprise me is that creators in SL would fall into it.

[Qie Niangao]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I've seen plenty of organisations try to inflict nonsensical terms on perfectly reasonable people - this is what the EULA argument sounds like to me. Doesn't hold water, not based in reality, not enforceable..

---

I Am Not A Lawyer (and if I were, I'd sure as heck not be dispensing free legal advice on teh interwebs), but yeah: the whole concept of EULA is shaky enough, based on scary few and narrow cases, but I can't even imagine finding a lawyer who'd want to base an action on this -- even if there were enough at stake to cover court costs.

The big problem I see here is adding an encumbrance contingent on "ownership" not merely of the content itself but also on this construct of Second Life "land". Getting a court to establish that such "land ownership" is a valid condition for any contract would be a whole separate argument, with the steeper hurdle of it being a valid condition on a content license.

I mean, just because there's a EULA doesn't mean it can successfully specify stuff about pounds of flesh, first-born sons, or phases of a Martian moon.

Underneath this all, though, I think it's simply meaningless, this idea of "giving away no-transfer items" that "still 'officially' are owned by you" because that's not giving anything away. It's merely using the items as Second Life content, as every major Second Life content creator accepts.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

reasonable people will ignore them.

---

Ya. And once this happens, the precedent that makes EULAs enforceable at all erodes.

Folks can't just write whatever terms they like into EULAs and then complain when paying customers reasonable expectations diverge from this. Plenty of cases in real life law set this standard.

This attempted overreach doesn't surprise me, what does surprise me is that creators in SL would fall into it.

---

You're easier to surprise than me, Freya ;-).

Although I find ChinRey's EULA to be a non-starter, I do understand the injustice it seeks to prevent. Like you, I wonder whether the prevalance of that injustice justifies the opportunity cost of the EULA's restrictions on reasonable behavior. I don't think it does. And it makes my head hurt just thinking about where to draw the line.

But I'm the kind of girl who leaves the top down on her Miata while at the movies. Yes, someone could open my glovebox and steal my Altoids, but that's a small price to pay for living in a world where I can believe I can safely leave the top down on my Miata while at the movies. That cost benefit analysis might change dramatically the day someone steals my Altoids, but so far, so good.

There is a value to my perception of the world around me and I try to optimize it.

[ChinRey]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

What if own a sim and develop it into a little town with 50 rental units?

---

That's may be a grayzone. which is why my EULA very specifically says you are allowed to use my builds fro your own rentals.

[ChinRey]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Ya. And once this happens, the precedent that makes EULAs enforceable at all erodes.

---

Yes, I know there really is no such thing as intellectual property protection in SL. In the end content creators can only hope there are enough honest people here they'll get a reasonable return for their work.

But there is a difference between accepting the unavoidable and recommending it.

Think about it for a second before you reply to this post, Freya, here's an example:

I buy a parcel of land cheap. Then I buy one of Pamela's houses, place it on the land and sell at a profit since the parcel now comes with this wonderful La Galleria house.

Next I buy another cheap plot, puts another copy of the house on it and sell at a profit and so on, and so on.

 

This is the kind of thing CassieMaia describes and what you claim is perfectly ok to do. Do you really, really think so?

[Freya Mokusei]

---

ChinRey wrote:

I buy a parcel of land cheap. Then I buy one of Pamela's houses, place it on the land and sell at a profit since the parcel now comes with this wonderful La Galleria house.

Next I buy another cheap plot, puts another copy of the house on it and sell at a profit and so on, and so on.

 

---

 I'm not in the business of land (I share it for free ), I've never bought whole houses - and if I were to participate in any of these ecosystems I would prefer variety, not copy-pasting.

That said, yes. In my opinion, the behaviour you outline as quoted would be perfectly acceptable to me if I encountered it. In your scenario, you're not competing with Pamela for house sales (but land, instead), you're not eroding her commercial potential to make sales with unique and innovative content, you're not circumventing protection offered by object permissions. You're not making unlimited copies, just one for each parcel that you pay tier on (tier being the restriction placed upon your infinite copying - say you own a whole region, why can't you fill all 15,000 prims with lots of copies of a single object? What would be objectionable about that?). I wouldn't consider it an infringement of Pamela's rights or IP, I would not AR it.

You do however continue to leave the quantity fairly vague - I've already been clear that I'm skeptical that this would reach "hundreds or thousands", I don't consider that a reasonable escalation if your "so on" reached that high in your imagination. I understand that you're adding a commercial element to increase perception of risk, but it doesn't increase harm, sorry - the people who would buy your land would not 100% buy from Pamela if they chose to buy a house.

ETA: In fact, I could see a counter argument. Having one of Pamela's houses on their land already MIGHT give them the information they need (via inspect) to purchase a more original house from Pamela, themselves. If the quality of the sample is good enough, maybe Pamela would get a unique sale just through having proximity. Win-win!

ETA/PS: It sounds like you're really not keen on people making copies (except, I guess, for backup purposes?). Is there a reason you prefer No Transfer + EULA's to No Copy?

[ChinRey]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I've never bought whole houses - and if I were to participate in any of these ecosystems I would prefer variety, not copy-pasting.

...

you're not competing with Pamela for house sales (but land, instead), you're not eroding her commercial potential to make sales with unique and innovative content

---

 Ummm... If you want a unique house in the style and quality we're talking about here and accept that the creator is actually trying to support themselves and their family... except to pay about a million Lindens.

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

You're not making

unlimited

copies

---

Well, obviously there is a limit to how big a market there is but apart from that, why not?

 

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

tier

being the restriction placed upon your infinite copying..

---

No, In my example I only own one parcel at any given time, selling it with house included before I buy a new one.

 

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

...

you're not eroding her commercial potential to make sales with unique and innovative content

...

the people who would

buy your land

would not 100%

buy from Pamela

 

if

they chose to buy a house.

---

You're right of course. I wouldn't erode Pamela's market specifically but the overall market for that kind of houses. Pamela would certainly have to take her part of the loss though, she's the leading name in high quality mesh mansions after all and there aren't that many other serious actors in that particular market - I can only think of three or four myself.

 

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

You do however continue to leave the quantity fairly vague

---

Good point.

I've been talking about the principles here so I never really quantified except to conretize examples. I've certainly seen plenty of parcel for sale with content and noticed they've been filled up with no-transfer items. Never really reflected over it, just felt sorry for the poor buyer who was going to be cheated.

The only way to find out, is to check a lot of parcels for sale. I don't really have time to do that myself right now but I did take a look at a few random parcels. The second one I checked was for sale with objects included and most of the objects included were no transfer. Might be just a coincidence of course

 

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

ETA/PS: It sounds like you're really not keen on people making copies (except, I guess, for backup purposes?). Is there a reason you prefer No Transfer + EULA's to No Copy?

---

Backup and redlivery is more than enough reason to me. I build for my honest customers and I don't want them to suffer more than absolutely necessary because of the dishonest ones.