Jump to content

Merchants banning customers from using their products


Tactical UwU
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1892 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

On 1/16/2019 at 6:10 AM, Prokofy Neva said:

Yes, I reap the fruits of my labour, which consists of abuse-reporting bad behaviour, calling out bad behaviour, reporting on bad developments, and and debating bad ideas. Happy to reap them. 

No you reap the fruits of your labor for being SecondLife's drama magnet.

On 1/19/2019 at 5:54 AM, Prokofy Neva said:

The "she" is only used to harass and heckle, it's not about anything else.


Do remember that despite our mutual animosity I don't think I ever met you in SecondLife so it's not like your avatar left me any impact.

Edited by Kyrah Abattoir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this post interesting. In some cases the marketplace reviews are an in the moment bad reaction to something that has very little to do with fact, it is rare to see anyone happy with something that does a review when they buy it, it is sometimes much later when they stumble across the ability to do so. The bad ones however are seconds after it drops, so are sometimes guided by misunderstandings of how the product works at all, or some kind of misunderstanding of Second Life as they may be new. 

There is also a disconnect for some that think that what they say there always reaches the creator and use it like some kind of IM guarantee, which is not the case, as often the emails that a review has been left go awol and are not seen at all. Then they carry that anger believing they did what they were meant to to get a customer support reaction. As far as blocking use of an item, if a Refund is given, and the item is no transfer to return it, then it would be a mutually guaranteed acceptable reaction. I have heard of people getting into arguments over products though and it costing the customer in the use of the product and that is wrong to do, if someone bought something and even if they go off their mind one day and start talking in tongues, that is whatever that is, but they payed for the product, so it is theirs to use. 

Regardless of how you feel in the moment, you can learn to use something, can learn to enjoy something and to be fair you can forget the history of the item, you can forget you had an issue, and that you were a crazy person, and you can use the item from your inventory only remembering you bought this thing and now like using it. Updates may have happened etc, and now it works how you wished it had, if it was refunded then yes, the customer should pay for it again, but lets just hope that what they do if they didn't do that is tell everyone how great it is, let people know to buy it, buy it for others and so on, that one customer may in fact make you other customers for life, because sometimes the ones that are loudest in the negative are often also loudest in the positive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Refund was sent and it seemed like a done deal.

Later that week, I notice that an update was sent to this person, on the product they got a refund for. I checked my logs for a little while and yeah, the product is querying for update regularly, and at the present time, has been doing so for the past couple of months.


Do note that they can still use the product that they got, I don't do killswitches, but I don't provide support or updates to people who steal from me.

Even with a "kill switch" - it would have been reasonable to use if a refund was issued.

As for "stealing" from you: we'll have to agree to disagree there: if I take a digital something from you without paying, it does not deprive you of said item, neither does it cost you anything to continue producing said item. So any word related to "theft" being used in any argument of this nature is a misnomer at best, B.S. at worst. If you want to call it "depravity of income" then fair enough, but don't call it "stealing from you."

Presuming people are beating down doors to get *your* version of whatever it is you sell (the truth is your stuff ain't that great - and that's a general "you," meaning everyone).

TO BE CLEAR: I am not advocating for illegitimate ways of obtaining anything at all. My argument is only for calling it "theft" when it is not that by definition because every word in any language has real meaning.

You are denied income, but it's not theft.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Even with a "kill switch" - it would have been reasonable to use if a refund was issued.

As for "stealing" from you: we'll have to agree to disagree there: if I take a digital something from you without paying, it does not deprive you of said item, neither does it cost you anything to continue producing said item. So any word related to "theft" being used in any argument of this nature is a misnomer at best, B.S. at worst. If you want to call it "depravity of income" then fair enough, but don't call it "stealing from you."

Presuming people are beating down doors to get *your* version of whatever it is you sell (the truth is your stuff ain't that great - and that's a general "you," meaning everyone).

TO BE CLEAR: I am not advocating for illegitimate ways of obtaining anything at all. My argument is only for calling it "theft" when it is not that by definition because every word in any language has real meaning.

You are denied income, but it's not theft.

I don't think the term 'theft' only applies to physically (or digitally) taking something from someone. Or does for example the term 'identity theft' only mean physically stealing someone ID card?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Christhiana said:

I don't think the term 'theft' only applies to physically (or digitally) taking something from someone. Or does for example the term 'identity theft' only mean physically stealing someone ID card?

Theft applies to deprive someone of something. In the case of identity theft, the thief deprives the victim of many things, including real money; there is a cost to the victim. In the case of a digital item: the "thief" takes a copy, but the owner or creator is not being deprived of anything with respect to a cost to them. To say they are being deprived of sales is acceptable, though if someone is "stealing" the item in question, that likely would never have been a sale in the first place. It all comes down to context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Theft applies to deprive someone of something. In the case of identity theft, the thief deprives the victim of many things, including real money; there is a cost to the victim. In the case of a digital item: the "thief" takes a copy, but the owner or creator is not being deprived of anything with respect to a cost to them. To say they are being deprived of sales is acceptable, though if someone is "stealing" the item in question, that likely would never have been a sale in the first place. It all comes down to context.

What about people who only use stolen identities as a way of anonymity and/or gaining access to a country?

"Using identity theft to deprive someone of money" is also known as "stealing money." The identity theft is a separate form of theft, that person has not "lost their identity" like "Who are you and what did you do to my husband?"

5 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

if I take a digital something from you without paying

What are your thoughts on piracy and copyright theft?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alyona Su said:

Even with a "kill switch" - it would have been reasonable to use if a refund was issued.

As for "stealing" from you: we'll have to agree to disagree there: if I take a digital something from you without paying, it does not deprive you of said item, neither does it cost you anything to continue producing said item. So any word related to "theft" being used in any argument of this nature is a misnomer at best, B.S. at worst. If you want to call it "depravity of income" then fair enough, but don't call it "stealing from you."

Presuming people are beating down doors to get *your* version of whatever it is you sell (the truth is your stuff ain't that great - and that's a general "you," meaning everyone).

TO BE CLEAR: I am not advocating for illegitimate ways of obtaining anything at all. My argument is only for calling it "theft" when it is not that by definition because every word in any language has real meaning.

You are denied income, but it's not theft.

It did cost me something, I did mention that I ate the marketplace fee. It's trivial sure but it only adds insult to injury.

And I call it stealing yes. It is an exchange, I gave them something and they did not honor their side of the deal. Result? I do not wish to do business with this person anymore or interact with them in any shape or form.

Edited by Kyrah Abattoir
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

What are your thoughts on piracy and copyright theft?

Copyright "theft" is among my favorite misnomers. 

Example: It is not illegal (in the U.S.) to download pirated anything. It is illegal to share anything pirated. Copyright applies to the originator of the material; the law is there to protect the customer. If I go to a hamburger place called McDumbell's and order a burger they call the "Big Mack" is it illegal for me to eat it? 

We can split hairs on what is and isn't theft. I was expressing my purview and opinion, so there you go. I'll reply to the next post then you guys can take the last word.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

It did cost me something, I did mention that I ate the marketplace fee. It's trivial sure but it only adds insult to injury.

It's still not a loss because Linden Dollars is a token and not legal currency.  If, however, you have enough sales that you are able to convert enough fake tokens into enough legal currency to make a living, then yes: you took a loos. Of about what, $1 U.S.? This is all a moot issue because we are really talking about pretend items in a pretend world with regard to pretend money.  I will not, nor do I intend to change your or anyone else's mind on the subject and neither will you change mine. I've stated my case and you have stated yours. So, as I've said in the beginning, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

It's still not a loss because Linden Dollars is a token and not legal currency.  If, however, you have enough sales that you are able to convert enough fake tokens into enough legal currency to make a living, then yes: you took a loos. Of about what, $1 U.S.? This is all a moot issue because we are really talking about pretend items in a pretend world with regard to pretend money.  I will not, nor do I intend to change your or anyone else's mind on the subject and neither will you change mine. I've stated my case and you have stated yours. So, as I've said in the beginning, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

My favourite thing to do is sometimes pay for something with paypal as the only funds in my paypal are from the selling of lindens so I chuckle that I payed for whatever with virtual money, but I didn't but I did, but I didn't...oh but I did :) 

As far as it not costing the seller anything, that is also untrue as each transaction has a cost, especially when listed on marketplace but even in world all vendors if broken down have a cost associated in the prims needed and the land tier paid etc. Then there is the cost of running the tools needed to provide the items, and the time it cost to create the item as well as the items cost when uploading etc. Just taking the time to reply in this forum about the matter is a cost, because something else could be done that may in fact bring in revenue. 

It is too easy to say virtual world blah blah does not matter (not you just in general ) but in reality all those small transactions pay someones rent, someones utilities someones medical needs etc, while the local pharmacy would not take lindens, they do take the money made from the lindens so it isn't nothing and it does feel like someone took something from you, while it may be a dollar, there is also the emotion added that someone could be so meh and petty and unkind and just downright dodgy as to take a refund and then use the item anyway. As I said in my own answer a mistake can happen, a forgetting that it was refunded and that it was meant to be removed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1892 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...