Should the permissions system be revised?

[Vivienne Schell]

Don´t get people started on IP right or copyright issues! 😎

SL copy/mod/transfer isn´t related to that anyway, so no point in directing the discussion to that swamp.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

4 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

Way to avoid my point.

Those things are no less legal, they just haven't been taken down.

wrong they are completely legal in some countries to have and use the application and will never be taken down. you cannot ever stop bittorrents from being available ever.

bittorents

Edited May 20, 2020 by Drakonadrgora Darkfold

[Charlotte Bartlett]

Also 

36 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

LL can do what ever they want the moment you put your items on their servers. you no longer own it they do. you have no special rights to the obejct anymore once someone buys it or you give them a copy.

can an ebook seller take the book back from you? no they cant.

can they stop you from using it how you want? not without taking you to court.

SL does not have to have the permissions system in it for it to be legal at all. it can run as an 'as is' business. use their service at your own risk.

Re the LL item - that's kind of a misunderstanding of the TOS.  
As content creators we remain full legal owners of our copyright - so we continue to own it legally,  We assign  rights to LL to use / display under certain agreed terms (per the TOS).  For example LL could not stop me also selling my items elsewhere that are in SL.

With the book example - they can't stop say printing it out to read it.   But should you copy it and then put it up to share or sell e.g. on Amazon - they can file under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for a takedown and if they also registered aspects (e.g. artwork in it) also include in their legal case a claim for actual / statutory damages (which may be enhanced if the infringement was wilful).  So you don't need court for the initial takedown part as that's the pre-court part.

We sell licenses to use things that do bind you to certain terms under the TOS.   So comparing a license to physical goods is Apples to Oranges.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Charlotte Bartlett

[Adam Spark]

3 minutes ago, Vivienne Schell said:

Don´t get people started on IP right or copyright issues! 😎

SL copy/mod/transfer isn´t related to that anyway, so no point in directing the discussion to that swamp.

Completely related. Not related to anything but that. Linden Lab has stated MANY times that the permissions system is designed to protect creators IP rights.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

3 minutes ago, Charlotte Bartlett said:

Also 

Re the LL item - that's kind of a misunderstanding of the TOS.  
As content creators we remain full legal owners of our copyright - so we continue to own it legally,  We assign  rights to LL to use / display under certain agreed terms (per the TOS).  For example LL could not stop me also selling my items elsewhere that are in SL.

With the book example - they can't stop say printing it out to read it.   But should you copy it and then put it up to share or sell e.g. on Amazon - they can file under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for a takedown and if they also registered aspects (e.g. artwork in it) also include in their legal case a claim for actual / statutory damages (which may be enhanced if the infringement was wilful).  So you don't need court for the initial takedown part as that's the pre-court part.

the dmca does not apply to all countries. so if a person lived in one of those countries it wouldn't really matter. for they could host it themself at that point and sell it on thier own personal store which can be set up fairly easily with todays software

there are software packages out there right now that can have you an e-business up and running in a matter of minutes and if hosted in a non dmca country dmca take downs mean nothing.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

7 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

Completely related. Not related to anything but that. Linden Lab has stated MANY times that the permissions system is designed to protect creators IP rights.

not because they had to but because they chose to, to give creators a reason to create. its really a false sense of security and protection at the end of the day.

imagine if they said 'hey creators your stuff is a free for all for whoever wants it' you think many people would continue to create things here? no.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Drakonadrgora Darkfold

[Vivienne Schell]

3 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

Completely related. Not related to anything but that. Linden Lab has stated MANY times that the permissions system is designed to protect creators IP rights.

1.5. You may grant certain Content licenses to other users through the Second Life permissions system.

Your interactions with Second Life may include use of the Second Life permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings for indicating how other users may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform your Content in Second Life subject to the Agreements.

1.6. You agree to respect the Intellectual Property Rights of other users, Linden Lab, and third parties.

You agree that you will not copy, transfer, or distribute outside of Second Life any Content that contains any Linden Content, in whole or in part or in modified or unmodified form, except as allowed by the Snapshot and Machinima Policy, or that infringes or violates any Intellectual Property Rights of Linden Lab, other Content Providers, or any third parties.

Any access to or use of Second Life through a software client other than the Linden Software that logs into the Servers (referred to as a "Third-Party Viewer") is subject to the Terms of Service, this Second Life Policy, and the terms of the Policy on Third-Party Viewers. The Policy on Third-Party Viewers provides required and prohibited functionality for Third-Party Viewers as well as other terms for those who use, develop, or distribute Third-Party Viewers; however, Linden Lab offers and supports Second Life only as offered by Linden Lab and is not obligated to allow access to or use of Second Life by any software or means not provided by Linden Lab. You understand and agree that Linden Lab is not responsible or liable for any aspect of Second Life that is accessed or experienced using software or other means not provided by Linden Lab.

Certain of the fonts in the Meta family of copyrighted typefaces are used in Second Life under license from FSI FontShop International. You acknowledge that you may not copy any Meta font that is included in the Viewer and that you may use any such Meta font solely to the extent necessary to use the Linden Software in Second Life and that you will not use such Meta fonts for any other purpose whatsoever.

[Adam Spark]

1 minute ago, Vivienne Schell said:

1.5. You may grant certain Content licenses to other users through the Second Life permissions system.

Your interactions with Second Life may include use of the Second Life permissions system and the copy, modify, and transfer settings for indicating how other users may use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, or perform your Content in Second Life subject to the Agreements.

1.6. You agree to respect the Intellectual Property Rights of other users, Linden Lab, and third parties.

You agree that you will not copy, transfer, or distribute outside of Second Life any Content that contains any Linden Content, in whole or in part or in modified or unmodified form, except as allowed by the Snapshot and Machinima Policy, or that infringes or violates any Intellectual Property Rights of Linden Lab, other Content Providers, or any third parties.

Any access to or use of Second Life through a software client other than the Linden Software that logs into the Servers (referred to as a "Third-Party Viewer") is subject to the Terms of Service, this Second Life Policy, and the terms of the Policy on Third-Party Viewers. The Policy on Third-Party Viewers provides required and prohibited functionality for Third-Party Viewers as well as other terms for those who use, develop, or distribute Third-Party Viewers; however, Linden Lab offers and supports Second Life only as offered by Linden Lab and is not obligated to allow access to or use of Second Life by any software or means not provided by Linden Lab. You understand and agree that Linden Lab is not responsible or liable for any aspect of Second Life that is accessed or experienced using software or other means not provided by Linden Lab.

Certain of the fonts in the Meta family of copyrighted typefaces are used in Second Life under license from FSI FontShop International. You acknowledge that you may not copy any Meta font that is included in the Viewer and that you may use any such Meta font solely to the extent necessary to use the Linden Software in Second Life and that you will not use such Meta fonts for any other purpose whatsoever.

Sorry Vivienne. I might be missing something.

It says basically that we may make use of the permissions system to indicate how others may use our products (our rights over the uses). How does this dispute that the permission system is related to IP rights, which was my point?

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

its all a moot point anyways, for anyone that really wants the item without paying will just find a way to copy or reproduce it for their own use in near exact form as the original. its been done thousands of times. and even on the mp you can find copied items for sell that are exactly or nearly exactly alike as another creator may have made.

 

[Charlotte Bartlett]

9 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

the dmca does not apply to all countries. so if a person lived in one of those countries it wouldn't really matter. for they could host it themself at that point and sell it on thier own personal store which can be set up fairly easily with todays software

there are software packages out there right now that can have you an e-business up and running in a matter of minutes and if hosted in a non dmca country dmca take downs mean nothing.

DMCA is purely only the US correct and as we are generally talking about SL - it's correct for the challenges that may come up with the OP's ideas.  

The good news with things that are US based - if a non US person tries to (illegally) counterfile a DMCA - they have to submit to the jurisdiction under US law selected by the filer.   Many countries e.g places like New Zealand (sorry random example ha) then allow recovery of damages under a civil judgement in their own country.    Obviously, that varies country to country - some being impossible to recover from.

Personally, I like to not get tangled up in the legal side of this.   I prefer to say "what is ethical".  It's why I would like a parent account so alts can share content - that to me feels ethical as there is just one person behind the keyboard making the payment regardless of whether they are on their dragon alt or human alt.

Back to being on topic and the OP - I still can't see this being something LL will be able to support but if they are serious about it, they can raise a JIRA so it can get evaluated.

 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Charlotte Bartlett

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

2 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

Sorry Vivienne. I might be missing something.

It says basically that we may make use of the permissions system to indicate how others may use our products (our rights over the uses). How does this dispute that the permission system is related to IP rights, which was my point?

it doesnt give you permission to tell them how they 'have' to use it.  a collar creator cannot tell you that you can only use their collar if your a slave and not a submissive. and not all subs are slaves.

[Vivienne Schell]

3 minutes ago, Adam Spark said:

Sorry Vivienne. I might be missing something.

It says basically that we may make use of the permissions system to indicate how others may use our products (our rights over the uses). How does this dispute that the permission system is related to IP rights, which was my point?

That´s not IP law/right, it´s just what it is meant to be: We can define the grade of what other people can or can not do with our things within SL. And that´s it.

IP laws and IP rights are something different, and WAY more complex. And better don´t adress that in any forum, haha.

😉

[Vivienne Schell]

26 minutes ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

the dmca does not apply to all countries.

It does.

https://www.lindenlab.com/legal/intellectual-property-infringement-notification-policy

https://dmca.lindenlab.com/

You can be a mule from mars and still file a DMCA.

But that isn´t related to the SL permission system AT ALL.

🙂

[Blaise Glendevon]

1 hour ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

its all a moot point anyways, for anyone that really wants the item without paying will just find a way to copy or reproduce it for their own use in near exact form as the original. its been done thousands of times. and even on the mp you can find copied items for sell that are exactly or nearly exactly alike as another creator may have made.

 

I guess, if you're a trashbag resident.

[JanuarySwan]

16 hours ago, 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?

 

Some of your items may actually be modify even though you think they aren't.  Sometimes it's the script only that is no modify while the rest of the item could be modified - size, texture the whole bit; however, the script remains no modify.  Items sitting in your inventory will read no modify IF the script it contains is no modify, so check each listing carefully of the items you do buy as they may be modify but read copy only in your inventory.

As far as transfer.  You can't have copy and transfer except on full perm items.  If the item is modify/transfer but no copy you can have that.  Or you can have copy/modify but no transfer.  Again, the only exception to copy and transfer is a sort of full perm item although most full perm items are copy/modify/transfer under a user license which each creator sets up.  

I also believe many don't want people transferring to accounts other than the purchaser probably to help prevent copy-botting.  Transfer all copies could be transferred to a lot of accounts.  I don't know how to copy-bot nor how it's done nor is not important to tell me how.  What I'm saying is this could be the reason.  Many creators are very protective of the items they create here.  And, with so many things already created for SL, would it really be fair to add that only into items created after a transfer-all copies was invented?  I don't think the merchants of SL want to cut off their livelihood by messing with that idea in regards to all the products that are already created because that should be an option not a force as with full perm items you are not allowed to transfer out of the original purchaser's account name.  

Many items are copy only so you don't screw it up is the basic reason for copy only in my own personal opinion.  Some items cannot be modified.  

Yeah, this is confusing...but always check to make sure if the item is copy and modify as it may only be the script which is making it read no modify in your inventory.  

Gacha is the main item to get involved in if you want to keep transferring account to account to account.  Second-hand resale market for Gachas is not a bad price for alts.  

adding:  Read more of the thread.  After reading the thread and thinking more about it - no I don't think the permissions should have any changes whatsoever.  What about all the items already created?  It could leave those out of the loop.  Plus other problems.  

Edited May 20, 2020 by JanuarySwan

[JanuarySwan]

1 hour ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

it doesnt give you permission to tell them how they 'have' to use it.  a collar creator cannot tell you that you can only use their collar if your a slave and not a submissive. and not all subs are slaves.

Thank you Ozzie for that information about Harriet.  

lmao

[Jennifer Boyle]

Wow, I never expected this much interest!

7 hours ago, Adam Spark said:

Two words: copyright law.

Second Life exists legally because it offers a permissions system to comply with the rights of creators.

Read the TOS.  LL has full rights to do anything they want with anything you upload. LL could give a free, full-perm copy to every account in SL, and the creator/uplader would have no legal recourse bcause, by uploading it the uploader granted an unlimited, non-exclusive license to LL.

Here's what it says"...you hereby grant to Linden Lab, and you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and sell, re-sell or sublicense (through multiple levels)(with respect to each Product or otherwise on the Service as permitted by you through your interactions with the Service), and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same."

Edited May 21, 2020 by Jennifer Boyle

[kiramanell]

4 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:

Some of your items may actually be modify even though you think they aren't.  Sometimes it's the script only that is no modify while the rest of the item could be modified - size, texture the whole bit; however, the script remains no modify.  Items sitting in your inventory will read no modify IF the script it contains is no modify, so check each listing carefully of the items you do buy as they may be modify but read copy only in your inventory.

 

Even most beginners in SL know about the no-mod appearing items in inventory (because most scripts inside objects are simply no-mod). More rare, but this can also happen when an item turns out to be no-copy, after all, when it should be. Usually same reason: a script may not be copy, or a texture or something. Or even a notecard.

Far more pernicious is the occurance where creators don't understand the difference between from-inventory and from-rezzed permissions. (This actually happens to the best of them.) Always, like I mean ALWAYS, set next-owner permission from inworld. If not, you can run into a situation where you can rez a copy of an item from inventory only, but which will then, once rezzed, appear to be no-copy inworld!

 

Quote

I also believe many don't want people transferring to accounts other than the purchaser probably to help prevent copy-botting.  Transfer all copies could be transferred to a lot of accounts.  I don't know how to copy-bot nor how it's done nor is not important to tell me how

 

Copy-botting has nothing to do with Transfer status. All viewers inherently know what an object consists of, textures and all. (If not, they wouldn't be able to render the objects). To be LL compliant, a third-party viewer must simply obey the rules set out for dealing with permissions. And apparently there are (home-rolled?) versions of viewers out there that don't. I stay the hell away of those, naturally, but just to make sure you understand Transfer and copy-botting are totally unrelated.

  

Quote

Many items are copy only so you don't screw it up is the basic reason for copy only in my own personal opinion.

 

There are others main reasons. Like rezzers, for instance. You cannot use a rezzer on a non-copy item. Which is to say, technically you can, but the item, upon rezzed, would no longer be inside the rezzer, meaning you'd have to go thru the whole process of having to put it back in again, each time. Plus, it's extremely dangerous, as ppl run the high risk of accidentally derezzing the entire scene, thus losing the no-copy item in the process!

Meanwhile, there's only one good reason no-copy items exist: so as to allow for Transfer on a not fullperm item. Otherwise I have yet to hear a good reason, other than nostalgia.

Edited May 21, 2020 by kiramanell
Typo

[Paul Hexem]

On 5/20/2020 at 11:26 PM, Jennifer Boyle said:

Read the TOS.  LL has full rights to do anything they want with anything you upload. LL could give a free, full-perm copy to every account in SL, and the creator/uplader would have no legal recourse bcause, by uploading it the uploader granted an unlimited, non-exclusive license to LL.

TOS doesn't override law.

[HarrisonMcKenzie]

On 5/20/2020 at 9:15 PM, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

Changing the permission system would probably break the SL completely.

Instead, appeal to your favorite creators to have their stuff set to Mod (with scripts No Mod). And enlighten them that there are no adverse effects to setting their mesh things to Mod. It will remain as vulnerable to copybotting as No Mod mesh is anyway.

Maybe all wear a tag or T-shirt saying: "I won't buy your No Mod mesh!"

And maybe it's an idea for merchants to have a tag that says: "My mesh is Mod."

I've chimed in on this more than a few time, and each time someone gets upset with my answer.

I sell clothes as no-mod. Full stop. You can't resize rigged mesh, and I don't want the end user changing the texture or colour of the item; if they want to make their own clothes, the can buy the full perm kit or make the item themselves. I have that right, as a creator, to protect my intellectual property from being used in derivative works. I may also be required to sell an item as no-mod due to licencing reasons.

Now, am I a tyrant about it? No. If you need something renamed, with or without a script, or what not, then just ask. I'm happy to work with my customers and have taken requests and advice before. If you want a shirt I have but in red, I might just make it in red for you for free.

My point is that creators set their permissions the way they do for a reason. Whether or not you like that reason is irrelevant, and harassing creators to break their licensing agreements isn't going to make the world better.

[Chaser Zaks]

Should the permission system be revised?: No. For these reasons:

• Massive fights will break out, forums, jira, in-world communities.
• People will lose trust in LL.
• There are legitement reasons for permissions to be as they are with some things.

Now, that doesn't mean I will support no-mod stuff. I find that no-mod stifles creativity. If I buy say, a shirt IRL, I have the right to tie-dye it, paint it however I want, etc. If I have a house, I can change the walls as I like. I personally think that no-mod should be left to specific cases like scripts, game huds, etc.

I see people use the lack of mesh being able to be resized a lot, and I find that kinda dumb tbh. Just because it can't be resized, doesn't mean there are not other uses to have modify permissions, for example:

• Rigged mesh can be linked together, so I can link my shirt with my pants, or gloves with my shirt. Some creators will make gloves/shoes as separate items(left glove, right glove), and that takes up attachment slot space. Worse is when bodies come in left leg, right leg, left arm, right arm, chest, head.
• Some creators are dumb and make the rigged mesh's bounding box absolutely massive because they can't make proper LODs. This results in awkwardness when entering areas and people see a massive top taking over the building, and personally, I like to not cheat LOD and have a bazillion polygons from 100 meters away.
• Some creators will explode their meshes before linking them together. When I say explode, I mean all the pieces are separated and all over the place. This makes, again, loading awkward. If the meshes are properly positioned and attached to the right bone, it will simply appear as a t-pose while downloading, which is much more visually appealing to me.
• Some creators will attach useless meshes to stuff, like a full mesh logo with a stupid amount of polygons, or a brain that no one will ever see. I like to remove those to lower my render weight, and be considerate to others who have to render my avatar.
• Some creators put retexturing scripts in clothes, which is quite handy, until you end up with 8 scripts using 64 KiB each constantly listening on a channel. I like to remove those scripts if I don't need them.
• Built in face lights are evil.

Do people have the right to make their items no-modify? Yes, absolutely. Do I have the right to say "nope not buying that"? Absolutely. Have I done so? Yes, I have, I always do.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Chaser Zaks

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

7 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

You can't resize rigged mesh, and I don't want the end user changing the texture or colour of the item

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.

7 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

I have that right

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

7 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

Now, am I a tyrant about it?

No one made that claim.

7 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

I'm happy to work with my customers and have taken requests and advice before.

You're one of the few.

7 hours ago, HarrisonMcKenzie said:

harassing creators to break their licensing agreements isn't going to make the world better.

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?

[animats]

No-mod clothes are a nuisance for those of us who dress animesh, because animesh lack a "wear" function. You have to link rigged mesh clothing to the animesh, which requires "mod" permission. But this is not a sufficient justification for changing the permission system.

[OptimoMaximo]

On 5/20/2020 at 2:15 PM, Arduenn Schwartzman said:

And enlighten them that there are no adverse effects to setting their mesh things to Mod. It will remain as vulnerable to copybotting as No Mod mesh is anyway

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. 

[Coffee Pancake]

 

The basic mod/copy/trans base we have is fine and serves us well, however there are enough edge cases to warrant more granularity, specifically with mod permissions.

Personally, I would like to see a number of properties excluded from the modify lock . (off the top of my head)

RGB Tinting - Essential for tone matching rezzed objects in a scene, right now it's pot luck. Just have to hope that all the stuff you bought from a dozen different sellers happen work when placed next to each other (they wont). (Cons : People wont be able to sell every shade of shoes under the sun as a separate purchase, which is just petty and anti consumer)

Texture Gamma (new feature) - As above, only for gamma.

Alpha Percentage and Mask type - Same reasons as above, another example use case is to correct alpha glitching (especially on hair) or layered trees (where only the very foreground ones benefit from blended alpha), not to mention performance.

LOD model selection (new feature) - Ability for the end user to pick and choose exactly which of the included mesh models an object uses for various LOD levels. This would allow for objects to be used outside of the creators initial intent and optimize scene complexity  (say, playing an indoor couch as a focal point in a field, where it needs to be always visible.) This increases overall utility and creative options. Yes, the Li will change, for better or worse, that's just the price you pay.

Script state - I don't advocate letting users blindly remove scripts, but being able to set them to 'not running' would be great. This removes them from the active pool and saves resources, and in the case of most items, will lock the state of an object. I've made my tree's pretty, I don't need or want to change them (or have them clicky).

Override Texture maps (new feature) - The object as shipped is locked to the textures provided. This would allow the end user to apply their own choice of override textures, these can always be removed reverting the object back to the authors textures. Yes this could look terrible .. but as the creator already has their money, what should they care.

Light - Enable and disable how or if an object emits light, with ability to lock it on or off (ignoring script commands). Can't tell you how many times I've had to trash an object because it's own lighting trashed how a scene looked.

Sound - Enable  / disable - Soundscapes are an important building aspect, so is being able to mute annoyances.

Hovertext - Enable / disable ... 

Physics - Enable / disable ...

 

Arbitrarily relinking is not on this list as it leads to catastrophic unforeseeable breakage with anything scripted, it would force everything to be sold copy simply to mitigate inevitable customer support headaches. (I broke my thing, i want a new one ... um.. _you_ broke the thing ... fine, I will viciously smear your name and brand)

 

 

Sure, this does allow the end user to deviate from the original authors creative intent, that's just fair use.

Anti consumer practices like selling 27 different tints of an object would die .. and that's fine.