Should the permissions system be revised?

[Mollymews]

i just realised that I don't care if a fitted mesh item is No-Mod.  Mostly because is attire, and I delete clothes from my inventory fairly often. Same as I do in RL, season changes and all that

i prefer Mod on inworld objects tho. If I can't modify build or garden stuff then I don't buy it

[Drake1 Nightfire]

8 hours ago, Mollymews said:

i just realised that I don't care if a fitted mesh item is No-Mod.  Mostly because is attire, and I delete clothes from my inventory fairly often. Same as I do in RL, season changes and all that

i prefer Mod on inworld objects tho. If I can't modify build or garden stuff then I don't buy it

Wait, what? You delete clothing based on seasons? Must be nice to have that kind of money...

[Mollymews]

1 hour ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Wait, what? You delete clothing based on seasons?

i have about 12 outfits at one time - sometimes more, sometimes less, but about that many on average.  When I stop wearing an article of clothing then I delete it. I have 2 outfits that I will never delete, as they kinda define me.  An outfit for me is top, bottom, shoes. About $US3 for each outfit more or less. About $30 per season. $120 a year about

i went thru a few different heads and bodies to get to 'me'. Settled on Maitreya and Snow Rabbit and that doesn't change now.  Same with skin, hair, dermal and nail jewels. I now have the sets I want so they don't change

i still have the other heads and bodies that I bought initially packed away but I haven't worn them since ages, and I don't have any inclination to wear them any more. So they will probably end up in the bin as well next time I spring clean my Inventory.  I am pretty ruthless when it comes to cleaning out my wardrobe and closets. Same RL, same SL

[Arielle Popstar]

The part of the No Mod that irks me the is the inability to rename certain inventory items. Several examples would be the inability to rename a copy of a mesh body by its skin tone, or shoes that has nothing related to what it is in its actual name. Same with a number of hairs. These sort of items will not be found by the normal search terms for such. Organizing my inventory would be simpler if I could at least rename or even just have the ability to prepend the name with a significant term.   

[Qie Niangao]

On 6/8/2020 at 4:58 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

The part of the No Mod that irks me the is the inability to rename certain inventory items.

One thing that makes this extra annoying is that the inventory system won't allow renaming inventory objects that permit Modify but have no-Modify contents. I imagine there's some practical reason why this is true -- simplifies Inventory to have just one permission rolled-up into the item, I suppose -- but at least it's possible to rez the thing from inventory, rename it, then take it back (and sort it into the favored folder, re-establish links, etc). So that's clumsy and requires being on build-enabled land. When that's impractical, in lieu of being able to rename it I sometimes create a folder with an informative name for the object, but that's even more of a kludge.

Incidentally, there's been a minor development about the suggestion that creators believe a certain popular brand of scripts for retexturing/resizing/tinting/etc can't be used in Modify-enabled products. That's apparently wrong, as I discovered yesterday as I was stripping out all the scripts I could from everything I was wearing (in order to attend the Simulator User Group meeting). I was pleased to note that my Semller shoes and Sintiklia hair were both modifiable so I could remove the scripts -- and behold: those scripts were the ones that were rumored to refuse to work in Modifiable objects. So that's not a real constraint -- which is not to say creators haven't fallen victim to a superstition that it's the case.

I haven't heard further from that scripter, and to be honest, the written materials that I've seen for those script products are pretty inscrutable, so some confusion would be understandable.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Qie Niangao

[Paul Hexem]

On 6/3/2020 at 3:11 PM, CoffeeDujour said:

This tends to happen when scripts are used to manipulate primitive parameters on parts of a linkset. Relink may change the order, the script fires and BAMF .. your object is trash with no way back.

That's just bad scripting. It's easy enough to use link name or description instead of link number, and avoid that problem.

 

On 6/7/2020 at 4:50 AM, Qie Niangao said:

@Alekso Minotaur and I have chatted a bit about this in PMs, and indeed we were talking about the same script set. I've asked that scripter for information because it really says nothing about this in their Marketplace nor in-world store information, at least as far as I've been able to find -- but on the other hand, I did get one response from that scripter suggesting I look at the LSL function, llGetObjectPermMask(), that a script would use to check the permissions on the object in which it was contained -- which of course I knew and wasn't what I asked, so I re-asked whether the product actually did this thing of checking and enforcing constraints on the permissions of objects where it runs; I suggested a copy of the internal license agreement* might help clear things up, but have so far gotten no response.

I certainly don't want to risk a "name and shame" here, and I'm kind of at a loss how best to find out more about this. Maybe some creator could add confirmation about this? I kinda hate to buy the product myself, just to get a look at that internal license agreement in case it's what we're discussing here rather than what's stated on Marketplace etc.

Increasingly I'm getting a sense I may end up needing to compile a free open source replacement for these scripts. Not exactly what I'd planned for the next few months of my SL, but if this is really what's going on, it's just gotta change.

___________________
*This is kind of strange: According to Marketplace listing "details" this scripter's products come packaged with a license agreement notecard that is itself No Transfer. I don't know why it would have that permission setting.

I'd contribute to an open source project if there's really a creator out there doing that.

[Prokofy Neva]

On 5/20/2020 at 3:24 AM, Jennifer Boyle said:

There are two areas in which it seems to me that the current system unnecessarily restricts and inconveniences users with no benefit to creators or anyone else.

One is my inability to rename no-mod items. This is particularly irksome with texture-change mesh clothing. As an example, I may have shoes that have many choices of colors. I want to put on black, ones or red ones, etc., and not have to attach and fiddle with a HUD every time I wear them. If they are no-mod, the only way I can record the color of a copy is to create a separate folder for it. It would be more convenient if I could add "red" or "black" or whatever was appropriate to the name. An alternative would be for creators to not make things no-mod. I don't want to mess with the design of the shoes; I just want the convenience of renaming them. Why not have a "sub-perm" under the next-owner permissions like "may rename only?" Why shouldn't I have that? What would be the harm?

The other is that no-transfer is absolute. Creators have a legitimate reason to want to prevent two accounts from using an item at the same time. They have no legitimate reason to want to prevent ownership from passing from one account to another. Imagine what RL would be like if no one could sell their house or car and no one could donate used clothing or books? Since the goods that we are considering are fragile digital files that can become unusable or even disappear for many reasons or for no apparent reason, backups are essential, so a user must be able to make copies. Creators are rightly unwilling for purchasers to be able to transfer something they bought while retaining a copy. But, why couldn't we have, instead of absolute no transfer, either "transfer and delete all copies" or, better, "transfer all copies" as the next-owner permission. This might require that a unique identifier field be added to properties; the unique identifier would never change, once assigned. A single copy of the item could always be transferred without restriction by the creator. What would be wrong with such a change?

 

No, the permissions shouldn't be changed.

Put the shoes in a folder, it's not that hard, just as easy to search for as a name.

If you need to clothe your alts, pay for their copies and support those creators. 

There is no way to make something "copyable only for me" and have it stick without disrupting copyright and creating huge coding headaches for Lindens.

It's not like most creators earn a RL living from their hard work. Don't begrudge them the extra US $1.00 or $5.00 or $10.00 which is all we are talking about here for outfits and mesh bodies.

 

[Jennifer Boyle]

12 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

There is no way to make something "copyable only for me" and have it stick without disrupting copyright and creating huge coding headaches for Lindens.

I don't know where the cocept of "copyable only for me" came from. Certainly not from me.

As for disrupting copyright, copyright is a REAL LIFE legal term. As such, it has no relevance to SL accounts or avatars, only to REAL LIFE people. To enforce copyright, one has to file suit in a REAL LIFE court against a REAL LIFE person. If ONE REAL LIFE person has multiple Second Life accounts, they cannot possibly violate copyright law by sharing content among the accounts because, if they paid for the right to use the content, it is the REAL LIFE PERSON who has the legal right to use it. They could possibly violate the terms of a contract by sharing among alt accounts, but not copyright law.

[Jennifer Boyle]

On 6/4/2020 at 1:37 AM, OptimoMaximo said:

I never implied that I make houses. Whoever has read my comments know that I do model for a small brand to avoid having to deal with packaging, MP, HUDs and, most importantly, customers. Even though my things are being set to copy, I get occasional support request for screwed up items bought from the store I make models for although the items are linked to a prim created by the store owner. Somehow these individuals are able to inspect an item and find out who made those things instead of contacting the store owner avatar. The store owner confirms the support requests are many. And we don't sell mod items! Most of the time the screwing up happens in the HUDs... Because they're in no scripts areas and the hud doesn't work.

I have one thing in my personal store that I sell as copy only and as mod copy at different price tags. Guess what? The cheaper one sells better. Useless to say that it is the copy only version. Edit to add: the mod and copy version didn't make me get support requests, no. But then, I sold 3 copies in total of that item version against 478 copies of the no mod version. 

Do you have a re-delivery terminal? That's pretty standard for SL merchants these days, and it's much easier for end-users than messaging creators.

[ItHadToComeToThis]

27 minutes ago, Jennifer Boyle said:

I don't know where the cocept of "copyable only for me" came from. Certainly not from me.

As for disrupting copyright, copyright is a REAL LIFE legal term. As such, it has no relevance to SL accounts or avatars, only to REAL LIFE people. To enforce copyright, one has to file suit in a REAL LIFE court against a REAL LIFE person. If ONE REAL LIFE person has multiple Second Life accounts, they cannot possibly violate copyright law by sharing content among the accounts because, if they paid for the right to use the content, it is the REAL LIFE PERSON who has the legal right to use it. They could possibly violate the terms of a contract by sharing among alt accounts, but not copyright law.

CAPS you know what I mean?. CAPS EVERYWHERE to make my point. ITS JUST that I need to MAKE SURE that YOU get the MESSAGE. CAPS

(To be said in an expressive poetry tone pausing after every word in capitals for dramatic effect)

Edited June 11, 2020 by ItHadToComeToThis

[Jennifer Boyle]

1 minute ago, ItHadToComeToThis said:

CAPS you know what I mean?. CAPS EVERYWHERE to make my point. ITS JUST that I need to MAKE SURE that YOU get the MESSAGE. CAPS

(To be said in an expressive poetry tone pausing after every word in capitals for dramatic effect)

And, what is your message?

[DeepBlueJoy]

On 6/10/2020 at 1:46 PM, Prokofy Neva said:

No, the permissions shouldn't be changed.

Put the shoes in a folder, it's not that hard, just as easy to search for as a name.

If you need to clothe your alts, pay for their copies and support those creators. 

There is no way to make something "copyable only for me" and have it stick without disrupting copyright and creating huge coding headaches for Lindens.

It's not like most creators earn a RL living from their hard work. Don't begrudge them the extra US $1.00 or $5.00 or $10.00 which is all we are talking about here for outfits and mesh bodies.

 

but I don't want to clothe my alt and steal anyone's money.   my friend was out of town, never went to an event. I cannot give him or her the item, even if it's no copy.

It is not always POSSIBLE to buy the item you want to give away.  Sellers leave SL.  And you have a perfect item for SOMEONE ELSE that you cannot give them... something they can NEVER buy anywhere.

Sometimes I get something I have no use for -- I have been given things by people  and I have a friend who wants the item and i don't care if i lose it completely... but I cannot transfer it at all... I either have to keep something that is useless or toss it, and watch my friend have to buy it.  Or worse, my friend can never buy the item b/c the vendor is long gone from SL.

I seldom buy no copy items, but if i do, surely I should be able to give those away if I never intend to use it again?  I don't understand people who sell things that are both no copy and no transfer.

A friend in SL is dying in real life.  She has a lot of lovely things from being here for a long time.  Most of them she cannot give away even though she will be dead soon and she cannot use them in the afterlife.  So a real life person cannot pass on something when they will never be able to use it again in second life because they're dead.  I'm sure her closest friends would have loved some one of a kind item of hers to remember her by.  I really like the idea of a 'transfer all copies' permission.  Or maybe a way to turn off use of any copies if you transfer the item. 

If I were dying, I would like my entire inventory to go to my bff in SL.  She would have my avi transferred to her anyway, so anything i have like houses would be hers to use, but sometimes it's easier to rez stuff in your own name and I have some killer clothing that I would love someone to be able to use. No matter how close we are, I seriously doubt she would want to wear my avatar if I were to die.

 

[Mollymews]

Deep, is interesting how such a permission systems as you envisage could work

there are number of considerations. Starting with the requirement: Copy-enabled while I possess the asset. Transfer the asset and all copies are removed from my possession

Consideration 1) No-Modify objects. On Transfer delete all copies from my inventory. Delete all copies that I have rezzed inworld

Consideration 2) Unlinked and unapplied Modify assets.  Same as Consideration 1)

Consideration 3) Linked or applied assets.  Unlink and/or unapply all copies of the transferred asset included in my objects from my inventory and from my objects that I have rezzed inworld. Then delete all copies of the now unlinked or unapplied assets from my inventory and from the inworld

technically is doable. Consideration 3) tho poses a number of significant hurdles to implement correctly. The biggest hurdle I think would be the search for assets linked/applied to inworld objects   

 

[DeepBlueJoy]

1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

Deep, is interesting how such a permission systems as you envisage could work

there are number of considerations. Starting with the requirement: Copy-enabled while I possess the asset. Transfer the asset and all copies are removed from my possession

Consideration 1) No-Modify objects. On Transfer delete all copies from my inventory. Delete all copies that I have rezzed inworld

Consideration 2) Unlinked and unapplied Modify assets.  Same as Consideration 1)

Consideration 3) Linked or applied assets.  Unlink and/or unapply all copies of the transferred asset included in my objects from my inventory and from my objects that I have rezzed inworld. Then delete all copies of the now unlinked or unapplied assets from my inventory and from the inworld

technically is doable. Consideration 3) tho poses a number of significant hurdles to implement correctly. The biggest hurdle I think would be the search for assets linked/applied to inworld objects   

 

Yes some of it is complicated. But some of it is possible,

Blue

Edited June 13, 2020 by DeepBlueJoy

[Qie Niangao]

3 hours ago, DeepBlueJoy said:

Yes some of it is complicated. But some of it is possible,

... except all those considerations must be addressed before any of it dare be turned loose on the grid. It's not just "do #1 and #2 and wait for #3" -- #3 has to be handled somehow before the very first such transfer can ever take place. Even if we assume this could only ever apply to brand new assets, this would substantially increase the amount of computing necessary for even the simplest operations -- which is to say, SL would get much laggier at doing basic things like rezzing, copying, texturing, changing inventory, etc.

And this ignores the fantastically complex user interface that would be required to implement a meaningful subset of this feature. "Here's a list of things that will be deleted if you want to proceed with the transfer. And here are all the outfit and other inventory links to assets that will be deleted. Cancel? Proceed? Teleport to see if you can remove the dependency?" The only really practical UI is to punt with "Operation Not Permitted" if there are any dependencies at all -- which is to say, it would almost never be used.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Qie Niangao
stray parenthesis)

[DeepBlueJoy]

10 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

... except all those considerations must be addressed before any of it dare be turned loose on the grid. It's not just "do #1 and #2 and wait for #3" -- #3 has to be handled somehow before the very first such transfer can ever take place. Even if we assume this could only ever apply to brand new assets, this would substantially increase the amount of computing necessary for even the simplest operations -- which is to say, SL would get much laggier at doing basic things like rezzing, copying, texturing, changing inventory, etc.

And this ignores the fantastically complex user interface that would be required to implement a meaningful subset of this feature. "Here's a list of things that will be deleted if you want to proceed with the transfer. And here are all the outfit and other inventory links to assets that will be deleted. Cancel? Proceed? Teleport to see if you can remove the dependency?" The only really practical UI is to punt with "Operation Not Permitted" if there are any dependencies at all -- which is to say, it would almost never be used.

If we never think of the complexities and the possibilities, nothing ever changes.  There are valid concerns to be addressed, but there are also changes that would make life better for a lot of people.  I think if we don't discuss the things that don't work and how we'd like them to work, we cannot even BEGIN to look for solutions.  So... I'm putting out all my ideas... what I hope and dream for, and what makes my life difficult -- putting it out there so we can talk about it and try to come up with work arounds and even completely new ways of doing stuff. 

One thing that I want the folks at linden to consider, is a way for someone to leave their avatar's possession to another person.  This is not for trivial reasons.  If two people run a business or manage a group of sims together and one of them dies, there are a lot of complicated issues involved if (for example) a lot of inventory or creative materials belonged to the person who died.  If they could will the contents of their avatar to another, then it would not be necessary for someone to spin up the avatar of a dead person in order to keep a business going -- or try to re-buy resources that simply may be irreplaceable.  Since families often have nothing to do with people's second lives, it's not outside of the realm of possibility for an overzealous spouse, parent or child to just delete their family member's account and all that is associated with it, never even knowing that their family member has others they answer to.  A member who knew they were dying might (I suspect it happens more often than one might suspect) simply give their password to a partner and that's an informal (but in my opinion, potentially problematic, not to mention painful) solution.

If I had that option right now, there's a person I would will my account to.  then if at some point, (with certain specific occurrences and proofs/documentation), my heir could take over my account and either move its contents to their own, or use it at their discretion.

digital wills exist in some spheres.  Like the real thing, the whole process is complicated, but it exists for a reason.

The other permission stuff I won't address right now. I'm thinking a lot about this one in particular b/c the shortness of life has been brought home to me very recently and the potential messes are quite significant.

[Jennifer Boyle]

On 6/8/2020 at 5:15 AM, Mollymews said:

i just realised that I don't care if a fitted mesh item is No-Mod.  Mostly because is attire, and I delete clothes from my inventory fairly often. Same as I do in RL, season changes and all that

i prefer Mod on inworld objects tho. If I can't modify build or garden stuff then I don't buy it

I care about fitmesh clothing being no-mod. Here's why: my body is Maitreya. An auto-hider script comes with it that can be put into an object to make specified parts of the body be hidden when the object is worn. With no-mod clothing, I have to wear a separate object with the script to achieve the intended functionality, consuming an attachment point unnecessarily; with modifiable clothing, I could put the script into the clothing. Similarly, scripts to position the feet come with the body. If shoes are mod, I can just put the script in them; when they are not, I have to wear an extra object containing the script.

With all of the HUDs, objects with scripts like I describe above, etc. 38 attachment points sometimes isn't enough. I expect that, in the future, it won't be enough more and more often.

[Qie Niangao]

6 hours ago, DeepBlueJoy said:

One thing that I want the folks at linden to consider, is a way for someone to leave their avatar's possession to another person.  This is not for trivial reasons.  If two people run a business or manage a group of sims together and one of them dies, there are a lot of complicated issues involved if (for example) a lot of inventory or creative materials belonged to the person who died.  If they could will the contents of their avatar to another, then it would not be necessary for someone to spin up the avatar of a dead person in order to keep a business going -- or try to re-buy resources that simply may be irreplaceable. 

I've been watching something like this play out recently near one of my Mainland locations, and it is indeed sorrowful. To be honest, the assets themselves aren't the hardest part of perpetuating that particular business, perhaps because it's an inherently social business, not based on products, and the venue was fairly well prepared for change of ownership. Still, I agree it's a problem that would benefit from addressing.

This specific problem could be reduced if accounts could be a better analogue of RL businesses, where some legal construct (perhaps a successor to the woefully over-stretched "Group") were able to own property in a way that officers could actually use them as normal products. There are huge hurdles to that, among them the "next owner" permissions apply to everything a group can own because there's no way to "Buy For Group" (except land, which doesn't have such permissions anyway). The underlying idea is that "business owned" objects would continue to be owned by the business regardless of who comes and goes as the business's operators.

Also, I can see that creators might want to will their IP to public domain when they die. That's certainly easy enough to do legally, in RL, and provision could be made for an agent of the estate to actually push the SL buttons to release those assets in SL. But there's nothing that makes it easy, and perhaps there's demand enough to justify it.

The thing I really don't care about, though, is the ability to will creations from one individual to another individual. Maybe there's some validity in wanting to transfer these assets from an individual to a business (perhaps a museum) upon death, but I don't see any benefit for therm to transfer to another individual. In fact, I think it would be better if that were impossible in RL, too.

[Mollymews]

11 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

This specific problem could be reduced if accounts could be a better analogue of RL businesses, where some legal construct (perhaps a successor to the woefully over-stretched "Group") were able to own property in a way that officers could actually use them as normal products. There are huge hurdles to that, among them the "next owner" permissions apply to everything a group can own because there's no way to "Buy For Group" (except land, which doesn't have such permissions anyway). The underlying idea is that "business owned" objects would continue to be owned by the business regardless of who comes and goes as the business's operators.

this I like. Would be quite good I think

[Prokofy Neva]

On 6/13/2020 at 1:51 AM, DeepBlueJoy said:

but I don't want to clothe my alt and steal anyone's money.   my friend was out of town, never went to an event. I cannot give him or her the item, even if it's no copy.

It is not always POSSIBLE to buy the item you want to give away.  Sellers leave SL.  And you have a perfect item for SOMEONE ELSE that you cannot give them... something they can NEVER buy anywhere.

Sometimes I get something I have no use for -- I have been given things by people  and I have a friend who wants the item and i don't care if i lose it completely... but I cannot transfer it at all... I either have to keep something that is useless or toss it, and watch my friend have to buy it.  Or worse, my friend can never buy the item b/c the vendor is long gone from SL.

I seldom buy no copy items, but if i do, surely I should be able to give those away if I never intend to use it again?  I don't understand people who sell things that are both no copy and no transfer.

A friend in SL is dying in real life.  She has a lot of lovely things from being here for a long time.  Most of them she cannot give away even though she will be dead soon and she cannot use them in the afterlife.  So a real life person cannot pass on something when they will never be able to use it again in second life because they're dead.  I'm sure her closest friends would have loved some one of a kind item of hers to remember her by.  I really like the idea of a 'transfer all copies' permission.  Or maybe a way to turn off use of any copies if you transfer the item. 

If I were dying, I would like my entire inventory to go to my bff in SL.  She would have my avi transferred to her anyway, so anything i have like houses would be hers to use, but sometimes it's easier to rez stuff in your own name and I have some killer clothing that I would love someone to be able to use. No matter how close we are, I seriously doubt she would want to wear my avatar if I were to die.

 

Bad cases make bad law. The Lindens in fact have a procedure that if you leave your SL assets in a will to someone, they will honour that. But you have to go to the trouble to spell this out and get a valid will made. It's something more than the Facebook Legacy program.

A person who has bought no-transfer items can elect to leave their account and its content to a friend, rather than intrude on copyright for everyone because of the sadness of some, and make them copyable to anyone. So that means yes, you would have to log on that dead friend's avatar, which you might not wish to "wear," but you could rez out their content.

In RL, certain things cannot be passed on because they become eroded or destroyed, like a land parcel worn away by the sea or a house that can no longer be repaired. Nothing is forever. There are certain things made in the historical past that I cannot readily buy, like a stereopticon. This is the nature of the human experience, and it is replicated in virtuality.

I have all kinds of things in SL that are on my land, particularly builds I commissioned and paid for, which the builder never bothered to turn over to me, although he gave me the textures full perm, and he left SL. And while I have been in touch with him, he doesn't want to bother to fix this. So the buildings suffer from prim drift and if they are returned by accident I am SOL. But such is life. New buildings could go up.

One thing to do is to deed land and content to the group so that anyone can use it. But then this leaves it vulnerable to griefing, so it has to be done carefully.

Copyright and permissions are the heart of SL. They are what made it work when so many other virtual worlds and games and platforms died. So it is worth preserving and using the same methods of RL in SL, such as making wills. 

Inventory loss is a harsh reality of SL. I have lost 15,000 items in a go, never to return, including many gatcha rares, and I recently found that inexplicitly, this lovely ice coach called "En L'hiver" made by Margot Abattoir is missing from inventory. I used to put it out every winter. So I mourned its passing because she is gone from SL. And far more importantly, I mourn the passing of SL friends who died in RL, who were more important than any one item of clothing or furniture. This is life. Nothing in excess. There has to be a balance. Many things are sad; that doesn't mean you destroy people's livelihoods.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Prokofy Neva

[Prokofy Neva]

On 6/14/2020 at 4:20 AM, Qie Niangao said:

I've been watching something like this play out recently near one of my Mainland locations, and it is indeed sorrowful. To be honest, the assets themselves aren't the hardest part of perpetuating that particular business, perhaps because it's an inherently social business, not based on products, and the venue was fairly well prepared for change of ownership. Still, I agree it's a problem that would benefit from addressing.

This specific problem could be reduced if accounts could be a better analogue of RL businesses, where some legal construct (perhaps a successor to the woefully over-stretched "Group") were able to own property in a way that officers could actually use them as normal products. There are huge hurdles to that, among them the "next owner" permissions apply to everything a group can own because there's no way to "Buy For Group" (except land, which doesn't have such permissions anyway). The underlying idea is that "business owned" objects would continue to be owned by the business regardless of who comes and goes as the business's operators.

Also, I can see that creators might want to will their IP to public domain when they die. That's certainly easy enough to do legally, in RL, and provision could be made for an agent of the estate to actually push the SL buttons to release those assets in SL. But there's nothing that makes it easy, and perhaps there's demand enough to justify it.

The thing I really don't care about, though, is the ability to will creations from one individual to another individual. Maybe there's some validity in wanting to transfer these assets from an individual to a business (perhaps a museum) upon death, but I don't see any benefit for therm to transfer to another individual. In fact, I think it would be better if that were impossible in RL, too.

You can deed an item to the group and then anyone can use that deeded item. People don't do this much because it's vulnerable to theft or griefing by moving around if you have an open group. And the permissions can still get messed up in this process. But that is the thing to do if you want to have "everybody" in a category you can still restrict by membership have access to an item.

I'm glad you're not in charge of RL. The things that parents leave their children -- books, trinkets, diaries, etc. -- are not going to be appreciated by a library as much as those children. The library won't take a lot of what seems like junk. Leave people to do what they wish with their private property and their families. What, the state has to intrude and confiscate their belongings and put them in the museum for "the people" or the trash heap of history?

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

And the permissions can still get messed up in this process.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned "Buy for Group" for objects, because "next owner" permissions apply with transfer. For example, it's impossible to deed an item to group if you bought it Copy+Mod/no-Transfer, but it wouldn't harm the creator if a group could own the thing directly, with Copy+Mod permissions. (An original item created by the group member who will make the deed requires careful permissions setting in advance lest the item become useless to anybody as those next owner permissions apply when deeded.)

And yeah, I'm not proposing an actual change in how inheritance works, certainly nothing involving the state confiscating anything. But I think people would overall be happier if the possessions of their forebears had simply vanished when they died. Among other things, it would have adjusted the priorities of those forebears in terms of what they could leave behind instead.

[MelodicRain]

People who sell non-rigged, non-mod and non-resizable accessories, I'd love to know what kind of substances you were on when making that decision.

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

On 6/3/2020 at 4:25 PM, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

It's mostly about the ability to remove scripts from it. Scripts are the prime cause of lag by people teleporting into popular sims. It's also mostly relevant to the non-rigged items, of which there are plenty.

No one told you in this thread that you haven't.

No one made that claim.

You're one of the few.

If you think wear a tag or T-shirt saying: "I won't buy your No Mod mesh!" is harassment, then maybe read your country's constitution, if it has one?

I have been openly crapped on and attacked on the forums every time I have spoke up on this. I've been openly harrassed and called a tyrant. So forgive me if I'm a little bitter from prior mistreatments. It's seems like a lot of people in SL have an axe to grind over one thong or another, and I'm a little tired of hearing about it.

[Selene Gregoire]

On 6/3/2020 at 8:17 AM, OptimoMaximo said:

Yeah, creators need that enlightening from you. As if they (we) didn't know already. How hard is it to understand that the creator doesn't want the final user to fiddle with color, textures, their parameters, etc. The argument of "you can't think that we're so inept to ruin your creation" doesn't hold up because the majority really is build-illiterate. Selling 100 copies and then dealing with 40 support requests because the buyer screwed up the product isn't fun and it's a waste of time. Ignoring them leads to negative reviews or bad word of mouth, so there comes the choice for no mod. 

Welcome to the world of business. It isn't going to change.