Genuine question: Why No Modify?

[SERAFICHESKIY]

I'm genuinely curious; why are so many, if not the majority of clothing & hair stores in Second Life now selling predominantly copy/no modify/no transfer items? This definitely wasn't as widespread

But despite seeing so many stores do this, I have yet to hear creators explain why they do it. I create things myself, I always get thanked for making things copy/modify and I believe my sales do better because of it. I genuinely can't understand what the point of making stuff no modify is other than to inconvenience the customer.

Here's some "speculated" reasons I often hear, guessed by non-creators:

"So they can't just buy the black/white pack and tint it"

This doesn't make logical sense for two reasons. One; black/white items tinted a vibrant color look bad. They are not comparable to properly textured, colored items, and I don't know any person who actually does this. Two, this reason especially doesn't work for hair, because most no modify hairs these days include tint HUDs. So that clearly can't be the sole reason...

"To protect against copybots"

Not only is this untrue (no modify items are NOT protected) it also does not explain why so many stores abruptly switched from selling copy/mod to copy only.

"The customer might break it if they can modify it."

Alpha Blending items break on their own, this especially applies to hair. Allowing us to modify the item may actually allow us to fix issues, should they arise. Also, I don't think that it's fair to inconvenience all customers just because some might break it... if it's copy anyway, they can just redeliver a new copy.

"To sell more fatpacks"

Some stores do sell modify only in fatpacks, but not all. Most stores don't even offer that option.

Obviously I have bias here - I like my items (both ones I sell AND buy) to be modify. Modify permissions allow us to tint, fix alpha issues, wear more items (by linking them together), clean up unnecessary scripts to improve performance, rename items for easier finding in the inventory, and make way more creative avatars. I see only upsides. But after being immensely frustrated by so many of my go-to hair stores abruptly changing to copy only permissions, I really would like to understand the reason why. Surely there must be a reason, right...? Or is everyone going no modify just because all the other brands are?

(Sorry if this is in the wrong category, I didn't see a "general SL creator discussion" section!)

 

[Yorkie Bardeen]

I don't recall the specifics but one creator explained why they only do fatpacks as modify and not singles. Basically people with the fatpack HUD were able to get hold of the texture UUIDs from the HUD and then give them to their friends with the single colour version, who could then just drop in a texture setting script and get the extra colours for free, albeit with some fiddly extra steps. So the creator in this case decided that if you want the flexibility of modifying the item, given the risk to them, then you should pay the full price for the fatpack.

I don't like no-mod items for the reasons you listed. I regularly keep my scripts under 10 in total and sometimes a little tint is needed to fix six different creators' opinions on what "black" is.

Creators can do as they like- it's their time and effort, customers can (and should) do the same with their own hard earned L$. I generally won't buy anything no-mod unless it's in a weekend sale, or it at least comes with script deletes.

[Victoria Lovelace]

I am a store owner and I make clothing and sell it with copy/modify permissions. I do not understand the reason behind no modify either. I actually encourage the use of tinting objects so you can more perfectly match with other creations. Although I don't (yet) have a tinting feature in my HUD, even when/if I do, my objects will still remain modify.

I sell my newer products by body size now and they contain all of the colors. But even when I sold by color, they were modify. I didn't have a higher number of white color sales. You're right, people don't do it because looks bad (lightly tinting can look ok but definitely not vivid or dark colors).

I've had good feedback from customers thanking me for selling with modify permissions, so they can add or remove scripts. But I did have one customer bring a new "negative" reason to selling with modify permission. They told me on some products, they have increased their screen zoom size by a lot, so the little texture thumbnail would fill their screen and take a screenshot, then make new colors for the item in their own program. This doesn't bother me enough to not sell with modify permissions as, 1- its gonna look like crap since that thumbnail quality is very bad lol, and 2- for most people that is just too much work anyway.

[Constance Finchy]

If you can modify something with scripts in it, and the creator made the script's permissions modifiable as well (or rather failed to select them as not modifiable), then hypothetically you would be able to copy the scripts? And take someone's hard work to pin off as your sort-of own.

[Orwar]

3 hours ago, Constance Finchy said:

If you can modify something with scripts in it, and the creator made the script's permissions modifiable as well (or rather failed to select them as not modifiable), then hypothetically you would be able to copy the scripts?

   Yes. If a script is modifiable you can read it, and if you can read it you can copy it. 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

8 hours ago, Constance Finchy said:

If you can modify something with scripts in it, and the creator made the script's permissions modifiable as well (or rather failed to select them as not modifiable), then hypothetically you would be able to copy the scripts? And take someone's hard work to pin off as your sort-of own.

I don't think anyone who is against no-mod products is complaining about no-mod scripts.

[Dana Enyo]

Up front, maybe I'm just weird, but here goes:

All the clothes/shoes I make are Copy Only. I see EVERYTHING in SL as being art -- every piece of clothing, our bodies, eyes and hair; everything around us; even the way we move are all creations of someone.  When you select the items that make you You, you're creating a unique piece if art from the works of all those artists.

So when I create something, taking time to paint textures and select colors, that's my art.  I put it out there the best I can make, and it's an honor when someone decides that my art will enhance theirs.  But it is still my creation, just as it would be if you bought it in a RL shop.

I sell several things most days; I really have no clue whether that's considered "successful" but it feels pretty good. I'm sure I've lost some sales because I'm No Mod but this feels right to me.

[Sid Nagy]

People inspect other peoples clothing to find out who the creator is. So they know who make the good looking stuff and who makes the junk.
If someone re-textures an outfit and makes it look like junk, the name of the original creator is still on the product. It doesn't say: Created by... and afterwards ruined by....

Every object worn or put out in world is a potential ad for a creator. I think a lot of sales take place because of what people see and inspect in world.
So if I were a fashion designer I would never ever sell clothing with modify options. Potentially bad for business. 

Edited March 5 by Sid Nagy

[PekeNL]

2 hours ago, Dana Enyo said:

So when I create something, taking time to paint textures and select colors, that's my art.  I put it out there the best I can make, and it's an honor when someone decides that my art will enhance theirs.  But it is still my creation, just as it would be if you bought it in a RL shop.

Except if I bought it in a real life shop, I own it and I'm able to whatever I please with it. I entertained the idea of giving my bike a paint job to a matte black as I prefer that over shiny silver while I give it a tune-up (breaks ect.). It'd be pretty darn weird if Gazelle would basically tell me; "That bike you bought? Yeah, no touchy beyond how it is. You're not allowed to customize it.'.

I often hear the argument; "I don't wanna deal with people breaking it." - which in fairness, true. Just throw in a disclaimer, it's not that hard.

I'll take it a step further: No mod is more likely to encourage more copybotting.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

34 minutes ago, PekeNL said:

I'll take it a step further: No mod is more likely to encourage more copybotting.

Correct. This is exactly why piracy exists.

[Orwar]

2 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

People inspect other peoples clothing to find out who the creator is. So they know who make the good looking stuff and who makes the junk.
If someone re-textures an outfit and makes it look like junk, the name of the original creator is still on the product. It doesn't say: Created by... and afterwards ruined by....

Every object worn or put out in world is a potential ad for a creator. I think a lot of sales take place because of what people see and inspect in world.
So if I were a fashion designer I would never ever sell clothing with modify options. Potentially bad for business. 

   When you see someone who've managed to turn up the environmental shine of a Lelutka head to 11, do you think 'wow, Lelutka really make trash heads'?

   That some people are too stupid to realise that a user has screwed up a product doesn't feel like an argument for gatekeeping everyone else from 'being who they want to be'. 98.7% of my wardrobe (give or take) is black, and yet I find myself having to colour match stuff because 3 different creators will have 5 different ideas of what 'black' is; if I could just tint the brighter pieces a nudge darker so they all worked together it'd be awesome, but no - instead I have to swap around clothing articles until I find some that do match. And then there's the whole thing about how many creators, even big brands, seem to know about as much about materials as chimpanzees do rocket science. 

   It is, of course, entirely the prerogative of a creator to decide that their products shan't be modified (although it often feels as if the only reason is so that they can force you to purchase individual colours or a fatpack, rather than fear of user error - especially since a fair few FPs now are modifiable). But it is likewise mine as a consumer to say 'this garment looks great, the mesh is really nice, the rigging is perfect, but the materials aren't, and therefor I won't but it'. If it was modifiable I would. 

[Sid Nagy]

10 hours ago, PekeNL said:

I'll take it a step further: No mod is more likely to encourage more copybotting.

Copybotters copy bot because they can. And than try to find an excuse for their actions.
Just like with software and music piracy.

[Wulfie Reanimator]

3 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

Copybotters copy bot because they can.

While there will always be people who steal just because they can, a large amount of piracy (and copybotting) is driven by of lack of access.

Someone might illegally download a movie because it's only available on one of the dozen streaming services, maybe even region-blocked by licensing (so not available even if they did pay), and a direct download is just way easier than actually paying for it. (This person would pay for it if the barrier to do so was lower.)

Similarly, people in SL will copybot no-mod things if they want to alter some detail for strictly personal use. This might be something like wanting to make custom textures for it, or making their own mesh that's compatible with one of the many popular mesh bodies that are locked behind exclusive applications. (This person would not copybot if the object was modifiable or if a devkit was openly available.)

Edited March 6 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Sid Nagy]

Copybotting is theft, just like piracy copying. 
Sorry, but all thinkable excuses are fallacies in my book. period.

If you buy something that is no mod, you have to accept that it is no mod.
And if it is only available as no mod, that gives no one the right to simply steal it, even if it is for private use.
 

[Wulfie Reanimator]

12 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

Copybotting is theft, just like piracy copying. 
Sorry, but all thinkable excuses are fallacies in my book. period.

If you buy something that is no mod, you have to accept that it is no mod.
And if it is only available as no mod, that gives no one the right to simply steal it, even if it is for private use.
 

We agree on the 99%, theft is theft. Nothing I said takes away from that.

I just can't understand this level of hand-waviness about the why. How do you expect to understand why anyone does anything if you're this simple about it?

[Sid Nagy]

I don't care why they do it. They will always find a reason to try to justify their behavior.
How about :
- For  the use in another world? Strictly for personal use of course.
- Too expensive to buy.
- I don't like the seller.
- Games should always be free.
- The software exists, so I can use it.
- Only clueless fools pay for something like that.
- I will only wear that dress once anyway.

[Orwar]

   Making an item no-mod to protect it from copybotters is a bit like putting DRM in your video game - it doesn't work even a little to protect it from even a slightly competent pirate, and it just makes the product a worse experience for your customers.

   Besides, using it as an argument when your fat-pack is modifiable? Yeah, no, it's just either greed or a very blatant declaration that you think your customers are so stupid that they'll give you a bad rep when others see them wearing your products tinted wrong. But if you throw me a wad of cash you can be as much as an idiot as you like with it!

[steeljane42]

18 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

Every object worn or put out in world is a potential ad for a creator. I think a lot of sales take place because of what people see and inspect in world.
So if I were a fashion designer I would never ever sell clothing with modify options. Potentially bad for business. 

Orwar already has mentioned part about envirnonmental shine on the mesh heads, but I'd also add to it other examples. Terrible shape, and there's a lot of people who sport them, makes those expensive heads look hideous. I don't mean terrible in a sense of aesthetics, but actually broken so eyes poke through the eyelids and teeth show through the lips, such kind of things. Should creators abandon bento and go back to static heads from 2015 now so people can't ruin their work by shapes?

Same for the clothing, if you want to use it as an example. No matter how good rigging is the extreme slider values (either minimum or maximum) will break it and make it look awful. No exceptions. There will be everything, from clipping to angular edges and stretched (in case of maxed out sliders) textures. I don't think anyone would look at those and think it's a creator's fault.

Now I do agree that copybotting is not something that anyone should do, and as much as I love to mod things there are some items that I don't care about modding wise, like jeans. If I like the fit and texture then it's really all I need from them, so I do buy no-mod things too. That said leaving item mod allows for a lot more fun to be had.

And some creators like TURB are totally fine with people ripping off their original textures as long as they don't sell those originals, and even tell to those people who do to show them their take on it. Some others provide the UVs, for the same reason, and I don't mean the FP garbage that has to come with with those, but original mesh creators. I tend to support those creators quite a lot by buying their creations at the full price.

[Spiffy Voxel]

16 hours ago, Orwar said:

That some people are too stupid to realise that a user has screwed up a product doesn't feel like an argument for gatekeeping everyone else from 'being who they want to be'. 98.7% of my wardrobe (give or take) is black, and yet I find myself having to colour match stuff because 3 different creators will have 5 different ideas of what 'black' is; if I could just tint the brighter pieces a nudge darker so they all worked together it'd be awesome, but no - instead I have to swap around clothing articles until I find some that do match. And then there's the whole thing about how many creators, even big brands, seem to know about as much about materials as chimpanzees do rocket science.

I've been there too, with a mishmash of different 'pinks'. And I'm still finding things in my inventory and for sale in stores in-world where the baked-in shine and reflections are really noticeable now to my more discerning eye. 

[sirhc DeSantis]

18 hours ago, PekeNL said:

Except if I bought it in a real life shop, I own it and I'm able to whatever I please with it. I entertained the idea of giving my bike a paint job to a matte black as I prefer that over shiny silver while I give it a tune-up (breaks ect.). It'd be pretty darn weird if Gazelle would basically tell me; "That bike you bought? Yeah, no touchy beyond how it is. You're not allowed to customize it.'.

I often hear the argument; "I don't wanna deal with people breaking it." - which in fairness, true. Just throw in a disclaimer, it's not that hard.

I'll take it a step further: No mod is more likely to encourage more copybotting.

But you are not buying in real life you are buying in SL. Now if I was Gazelle (nice ref - nice bikes) I would not care what you did as you have handed over what -  over a k euros for it? Go ahead, have fun:) If you break it we can sell you the way to fix it or you get another. In SL you spend oh say 100L on something...

Always a fascinating topic.

[blaireberry]

Don't worry, any creation "ruined" by a user is at low risk if being inspected. People generally inspect items that look good to them.

[Blush Bravin]

On 3/6/2024 at 6:21 PM, blaireberry said:

Don't worry, any creation "ruined" by a user is at low risk if being inspected. People generally inspect items that look good to them.

The flip side of this is that it's quite possible you would have inspected the item had it not been modded. You very well may have looked to see who the creator was and possibly visited the person's store. But because the item looked crappy you didn't even take a moment to see who made it. I personally do a lot of "window shopping" looking at what people are wearing to find new creators. This kind of advertising is the same as word of mouth, which in my opinion is some of the best advertising. So while I too like to be able to mod clothing, I don't begrudge any creator who decides to make their creations no mod. 

[blaireberry]

4 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

The flip side of this is that it's quite possible you would have inspected the item had it not been modded. You very well may have looked to see who the creator was and possibly visited the person's store. But because the item looked crappy you didn't even take a moment to see who made it. I personally do a lot of "window shopping" looking at what people are wearing to find new creators. This kind of advertising is the same as word of mouth, which in my opinion is some of the best advertising. So while I too like to be able to mod clothing, I don't begrudge any creator who decides to make their creations no mod. 

Yes that's true. I guess that leads to the question of whether a creator sells their products so they can get free advertising from their paying customers or so their customers can enjoy their products. And either is fine; it's up to the consumers to choose what suits them.

[Blush Bravin]

2 hours ago, blaireberry said:

 I guess that leads to the question of whether a creator sells their products so they can get free advertising from their paying customers or so their customers can enjoy their products. 

That assumes there are NO customers who enjoy no mod clothing, which I find completely erroneous. I buy tons of no mod clothing and enjoy the heck out of my clothes. There are a few brands of mod clothing that I probably wouldn't buy if it weren't for the fact they are mod as the quality of the mesh and color selections offered wouldn't fulfill my needs otherwise. So, I get that making your product mod is just one feature that may make your products more attractive. But in my opinion, there are many creators who make such a superior product that having mod as a feature just isn't important.

[blaireberry]

23 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

That assumes there are NO customers who enjoy no mod clothing, which I find completely erroneous. I buy tons of no mod clothing and enjoy the heck out of my clothes. There are a few brands of mod clothing that I probably wouldn't buy if it weren't for the fact they are mod as the quality of the mesh and color selections offered wouldn't fulfill my needs otherwise. So, I get that making your product mod is just one feature that may make your products more attractive. But in my opinion, there are many creators who make such a superior product that having mod as a feature just isn't important.

That's not what I meant. I was responding to your comment from the point of view of people "inspecting" items and that form of indirect advertising. I wasn't trying to imply how customers enjoy their product; rather, the intent of a creator, their wariness of their items being inspected, and how they respond to that. They may respond with the reasoning that yes they do want their customers to showcase their work and they have enough customers who don't mind no-mod. Whatever the case, it's fine. As I said, at the end of the day it is up to consumers to choose for themselves.

I personally don't pay attention to permissions when it comes to clothes either so I'm probably just not making my point well.