What Justification Is There For No Mod Permissions?

[UnilWay SpiritWeaver]

12 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

It seems to be changing though - this thread has been around almost a day and we haven't gotten the usual suspects who defend no-mod yet.

I think people understand the value of mod.

It's when you go after a specific brand for using no-mod that fur will rise and folks start hissing and barking.

Vehicles being mod (which you mention in the part I snipped) is a very good idea. With SL vehicles you're dealing with region crossings a lot - and that's the place where script load starts to matter. Every last thing you can do to make your scripts load in faster on a region crossing is a good idea.

That can be the difference between someone buying your brand of motorbike and smoothly racing through the streets of Belli or Bay City, and someone else buying that other guy's brand and doing the "electric slide" through the air every time they try to cross a region.

Of course you can make the best motorbike ever but still can't control the 75 HUDs and pile of scripted attachments your customer is wearing. They will blame you when they get tossed on a region cross, and not all that junk. But hey... you can still try.

 

Edited April 17 by UnilWay SpiritWeaver

[Aethelwine]

Going back over ten years I know a bike maker in SL that paid someone to make them bike scripts to a specification. The scripts set their bikes apart from competitors, smooth region crossings, keeps straight when want it to, turns smoothly, recover function etc. They started to collaborate with another bike maker and shared their scripts with them. The second bike maker got permissions wrong on one of the bikes they sold, the scripts were mod.. The scripts went wild and others starting selling bikes using the scripts. They fell out over it. I liked both of them, it was tragic a mistake on permissions would have such consequences not just for their income but their friendship.

I used to make bikes, sold a handful. But mostly just gave them away as beginner bikes but I must admit I have probably been over cautious making them no mod on scripts and bikes themselves in case I would let something loose into the wild that would damage another creator. Permissions are weird and sometimes they don't do quite what you think they will especially when applied to linksets.

All that said mod permissions are definitely best for vehicles. I loved making my own bikes from kits so I could customise them, or customise vehicles. Adding a basket of flowers to my scooter, or for xmas cruise Wreaths and lights. I don't feel too guilty for giving away no mod vehicles because well they were freebies anyway. But if I was seriously selling then mod would be the way to go, so people could make the vehicle their own.   

[Rick Nightingale]

40 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

I don't feel too guilty for giving away no mod vehicles because well they were freebies anyway. But if I was seriously selling then mod would be the way to go, so people could make the vehicle their own.

Agreed on the freebies aspect. That's different to selling a product. I've done that myself for group Christmas gifts; given away a special version of a product with no-mod set. Otherwise, it's effectively giving away the full product to everyone and I don't make enough money to do that. I've occasionally done them as demos too; fully usable but only as-is and no-mod.

Making things your own is just it! That's what I love doing and have from day one in SL.

-----------------

There's also the practical aspect to mod vs no-mod, with clothes and just about everything. For example, My wife has no end of trouble with auto-alpha scripts in Lara (and LX), and always has. If the clothes were modifiable, it wouldn't be an issue to remove the script and use an alpha mask. At least now, most (all?) sellers of LX clothes are using v5 of the script, so it can be removed by command. A huge amount of her items though are v4, including ones bought from well-regarded stores right up to the release of LX despite her repeatedly asking them to upgrade the script to v5 (it was available years ago!). So, those clothes are nothing but a pain. The makers seem unconcerned that it has frequently meant no sale to us because we are sick of making one-off versions of the body, pulling the scripts out of it, just to use yet another no-mod item of clothing reliably.

Things change in SL; scripting, rendering... if things are modifiable we can change them to account and continue to use them.

With the introduction of PBR and the fact that there is both more opportunity and more need for purchasers to be able to modify things, there was an opportunity to take another look at the system. LL being LL isn't interested in that though, I guess.

Edited April 18 by Rick Nightingale

[Midnoot]

8 hours ago, Rick Nightingale said:

Yeah... done it myself once or twice. I once had a build that was linked, in several pieces, all to the maximum 255 links. Yep, one day I unlocked it and accidentally hit delete. My most often made boo-boo though is to click 'select face' in the edit tool after selecting a big linkset, then forget to actually select the face when I apply the new texture. Suddenly my house all goes pink like the flower petals in the vase I was trying to change.

These days I put the coordinates and rotation in every linkset's description field; just make sure to update it if the root changes. Then I take a copy and keep it in my Archive folder. It's come in handy several times., including when SL itself somehow deleted half my build during a restart. By the time the ticket to do a rollback had been processed, it was too late.

Not surprised at all that the Blueberry group would stone anything that dare suggest some freedom of customization . Wrong quote but you get it. V:

Edited April 18 by Midnoot

[Aethelwine]

One thing particularly frustrating about this is the no mod listing in marketplace is often used because the object being sold shows as no mod because something in the contents is no mod. Any demo you get will be no mod to stop you from making it useable. So unless the description specifically says you can't be sure if  what you are getting is mod or not.

[Marianne Little]

19 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

One thing particularly frustrating about this is the no mod listing in marketplace is often used because the object being sold shows as no mod because something in the contents is no mod. Any demo you get will be no mod to stop you from making it useable. So unless the description specifically says you can't be sure if  what you are getting is mod or not.

The worst thing for me, is when the item is listed as modify because it has a resizer script or a texture change script. But it can not be tinted or textured, or if it is a rezzable object in many parts, I can not unlink parts, or link the item in a linkset.

In my book, that is the biggest sin. It is a warped way of thinking about an item as modify.

[UnilWay SpiritWeaver]

10 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

One thing particularly frustrating about this is the no mod listing in marketplace is often used because the object being sold shows as no mod because something in the contents is no mod.

Oh that drives me nuts. From both ends.

If your a seller and you have a mod-able object but there's a no-mod notecard or script in there, it will try to flag you as no-mod even though the object itself can be messed with, re-textured, etc.

If you're a buyer you sit there looking at it wondering if you can trust the merchant that tells you it's mod despite how MP flagged it.

 

[Blush Bravin]

28 minutes ago, UnilWay SpiritWeaver said:

If your a seller and you have a mod-able object but there's a no-mod notecard or script in there, it will try to flag you as no-mod even though the object itself can be messed with, re-textured, etc.

If you're a buyer you sit there looking at it wondering if you can trust the merchant that tells you it's mod despite how MP flagged it.

I've never had the MP decide how to list the perms on any of my products. That is completely at my control as the merchant. So if a product is listed as no-mod in an MP listing, it's because the merchant set it that way. If you're not sure about the perms, why not just message the merchant and ask for clarification?

On the other hand, if you're referring to the contents of a vendor (if it's even visible these days) then the perms are shown automatically based on the actual object's perms.

Edited April 18 by Blush Bravin
added a bit

[Codex Alpha]

Well, after all the assumptions of bad faith and negative portrayals of creators who decide to use no-mod on some of their products, it's not like I or any other creators would want to really enter this convo. I've probably already stated my position this, but nothing ever changes in attitudes around here, and this topic pops up every 6 months or so.

Here are some reasons I or others MAY decide to no-mod our products:

1) Because we reserve the right to set any permissions we want, and don't really owe anyone any explanation.

I don't think it is very courteous or fair to demand things from creators, or shame them or portray them in a negative fashion, in some bid to influence how creators will behave or list items here.

You are free to ignore the product and leave it at that, if it does not suit your needs. Now going one step further and saying "I will never buy anything from this creator because this product(s) are no-mod!" is in  your power, but then you might miss out on other products you might actually like, and fit with your needs.

This number one reason really is where any discussion can end, but I can give more reasons.

2) It protects the creation from getting broken

The product might be a specialized machine, vehicle or composition that relies on all its parts working along with the scripts.

This action might include the creator having a vision and usage and presentation for the product, and does not desire the product to be represented or used in any other way.

Even if one made a 'creator has an ego/pride' argument, then so what? I take pride in things that I make, and I do them to the best of my ability. Yes, sometimes I don't want my baby bastardized, destroyed and meddled with - see #1.

It may cut down on complaints and helping people figure out what they did to mess up the product, as a creator can carefully create an interface with the product to change anything that a user might need to, such as textures, colors, lights, etc

3) I only want you to have ONE instance of the item

As relating to number 2, it may be a specialized product, robot, machine, vehicle or other that was not meant to be instanced 100 times, on perhaps multiple lands and on multiple users lands, and only to be used one time, in one instance with one user - the customer.

I also have felt the same myself, when buying a no-mod product. I've never had such complaints, and of course I wished I could have multiples at times, but I worked with it. Like a certain inworld LSL book on programming with LSL, that you pulled out inworld and flipped through the pages. I can see that creator not wanting you to buy one book, then copying it to all your 33 friends for free.

I also held that no-mod piece in high regard, yes due to the fear I would lose it, or leave it behind LOL, and in some people's minds, that creates a feeling of HIGH VALUE to this piece. This is a magical orb object, and must be looked after carefully :-D.  No mod, countless copies has the opposite result: a possible perceived 'less value' of sorts, as it is not so precious and unique.

4) To protect IP or to discourage reverse engineering a product

Yes, there are individuals out there who have a sole purpose to deconstruct your object for whatever nefarious purpose. This is not as much of a recent concern, but HAS been concerns by creators in the past.

That being said, I do deconstruct things myself to learn from, in good faith and do not seek to reverse-engineer or 'copy' someone's product - and can learn a lot from and admire that person because I was able to do so. However, I don't complain if a creator doesn't want to share.

Even if some here would like to portray creators as 'paranoid', see #1. They can be paranoid or not, they don't need a reason. That reason is their own.

5) The product is intended to be used as a composition, and not a building set.

This is an interesting challenge for me, as I progress (on other 3d platforms) into more of a modular builder and tackling more architectural targets (finally).

I must create, texture and optimize each piece, and build final products out of them from the same pieces. These pieces allow me to build several products in the same style and look, and could be sold as their composite products.

Sometimes in SL, it is more efficient for Land Impact and LODS for pieces to be uploaded and the product built within SL (the LI impacts can be huge depending on the size of your uploaded piece).

So here's the challenge. Do you sell a modular built house with mod or no-mod? If mod, the end user can deconstruct your house and use the pieces to build whatever they want. If it is a full modular set, they could do QUITE A LOT with that.

With no-mod, they buy the house as is. Modifications to interior walls, window shades, door passwords, etc can all be provided with a creator made custom menu (like SL homes), so customization wouldn't be a problem.

So then, we would need to price our products BY INTENDED END USE.

An intact house would be one price. A house BUILDING SET would definitely be a different price, and most likely priced much higher - due to the options available.

Also a creator could argue that the home itself is an advanced product, well-oiled crafted product that the creator doesn't want tampered with, relating to previous points...

6) No matter what, the customer is protected anyway, as the product can be redelivered at any time

No-mod creations put no undue risk of loss to the customer, and if lost can always be redelivered at any time.

EXPERIENCE:

Oddly enough, as I am FOR giving the end user as much choice, re-usability and customization, in experience - it doesn't mean that the customer understands they can, want to , or even care.

I've had just as many complaints for no-mod as mod items, and amazingly on the items that I spent EXTRA time to have features, customizations, etc - so quite odd.

Other 3d asset platforms don't have all the choice that SL'ers too. The vast MAJORITY of users of 3d assets out there (if not game devs, etc) just take the item and plop it in their world and move on. Most are not looking at a dress and saying "I like that blue floral dress, but I'm going to buy it and make it green".

Edited April 25 by Codex Alpha

[Theresa Tennyson]

23 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

 

3) I only want you to have ONE instance of the item

As relating to number 2, it may be a specialized product, robot, machine, vehicle or other that was not meant to be instanced 100 times, on perhaps multiple lands and on multiple users lands, and only to be used one time, in one instance with one user - the customer.

I also have felt the same myself, when buying a no-mod product. I've never had such complaints, and of course I wished I could have multiples at times, but I worked with it. Like a certain inworld LSL book on programming with LSL, that you pulled out inworld and flipped through the pages. I can see that creator not wanting you to buy one book, then copying it to all your 33 friends for free.

I also held that no-mod piece in high regard, yes due to the fear I would lose it, or leave it behind LOL, and in some people's minds, that creates a feeling of HIGH VALUE to this piece. This is a magical orb object, and must be looked after carefully :-D.  No mod, countless copies has the opposite result: a possible perceived 'less value' of sorts, as it is not so precious and unique.

.....

6) No matter what, the customer is protected anyway, as the product can be redelivered at any time

 

 

Edited April 25 by Theresa Tennyson

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

1) Because we reserve the right to set any permissions we want, and don't really owe anyone any explanation.

Yes, you're quite right. You don't "owe" anyone an explanation -- you can do what you want.

And as a consumer, so will I. But it is potentially useful to creators to know that I won't buy their things because they are no mod. Consider it free market research!

I note that your items mostly seem to be mod, so this doesn't apply. Thank you, however, for offering these explanations even if they are not "owed."

15 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

2) It protects the creation from getting broken

And yet, as you note, most items can be replaced through redeliver (assuming they are not also no-copy, which I definitely do not buy).

I sometimes puzzle over this one:

18 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

This action might include the creator having a vision and usage and presentation for the product, and does not desire the product to be represented or used in any other way.

Even if one made a 'creator has an ego/pride' argument, then so what? I take pride in things that I make, and I do them to the best of my ability. Yes, sometimes I don't want my baby bastardized, destroyed and meddled with - see #1.

I mean, sure, again, that's your right. But in RL I wouldn't accept restrictions on what I do with products I've purchased -- I have, after all, paid money for them -- and the same is true of SL. If I am putting a table you made in a pic, but I don't want the flowers you've placed on that table there, I expect to be able to remove them. If I think that this pair of jeans goes better with this top than the skirt that it comes with, that should be my decision.

This feels a little like the "subscription" argument for software: you don't really get to "own" something, because the dead hand of the creator continues to exert authority over it even after you've paid for it.

22 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

3) I only want you to have ONE instance of the item

Not sure I understand you here. We're talking about mod perms, not copy ones?

I've lost too many no-copy items to accidents and glitches to spend money on them now. And it's really inconvenient. And, of course, you can't get a redelivery.

So, no thanks.

23 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

4) To protect IP or to discourage reverse engineering a product

My understanding is that no-mod perms does very little to "protect" an item. Is that incorrect?

25 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

5) The product is intended to be used as a composition, and not a building set.

I buy lots of building kits to create backdrops. I do so for a number of reasons, but one very practical one is that they generally come with maps. If they don't, the likelihood is that I won't waste money on them, because retexturing is important to me.

So, if you are selling a complete house, and also one designed to be modular, I'll almost certainly opt for the latter (if maps are included in the package). But if you DON'T offer that option, and I can rip a window from your full version of the house that I've paid for, for use in a backdrop or scene, I'm not going to feel bad about that because you aren't selling a modular version anyway. In other words, you aren't losing any money from this: I'm not cannibalizing something that I could be paying money for in full perm or modular form. So, I don't see how this hurts you?

31 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

6) No matter what, the customer is protected anyway, as the product can be redelivered at any time

Except (as Theresa has pointed out) if your object is no-copy. And "protecting" my possession of an item that I can't use in the way I intended when I purchased it isn't terribly useful, really.

Just to recap: I totally agree with you that it should be your choice as to whether something you create is no mod.

But consumers also have a choice, and as your post here makes clear, many of us want mod perms. I won't buy decorative or structural things that don't have these. So, if I'm telling you that, it's not to "shame" you -- it's to inform you that you've lost my business because of your choices.

And that, surely, is useful information?

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

2) It protects the creation from getting broken

No it doesn't. It only prevents the end user from fixing it if it does break.

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

4) To protect IP or to discourage reverse engineering a product

Nothing you do with permissions can stop me from stealing or reverse engineering your product if I really want to (other than scripts, which has been covered already).

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

6) No matter what, the customer is protected anyway, as the product can be redelivered at any time

That can be done no matter what permissions are on it.

The other three are simply anti-consumer, so we're still at "no good reason for it".

Edited April 25 by Paul Hexem

[Paul Hexem]

3 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

No it doesn't. It only prevents the end user from fixing it if it does break.

4 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Nothing you do with permissions can stop me from stealing or reverse engineering your product if I really want to (other than scripts, which has been covered already).

As a matter of fact, a broken, no mod item is more likely to be stolen. I have a mesh head in my inventory from a very prominent creator that has buggy materials on it. I contacted the creator, who said "We've moved on from that version, updates are in the new version." which was not a free update.

It would be extremely easy for me, if I were so inclined, to turn it into a full perm head and fix it myself. Unfortunately I only like to push the rules, not break them.

[Luna Bliss]

SL content needs to be modifiable in almost all cases. However, I do understand the horror some go through when seeing something they created re-textured poorly, because my name is on it!  Hey, I didn't do that!.

Case in point, once a partner and myself created the most lovely of houses with our own specially created wood texture.  I chanced upon this house out in the wild and the new owner had textured it into brown, shiny plastic!! It looked horrible, I mean even in a Walt Disney caricatured setup it would be colorful plastic!  But there it sat, high on a hill, with my name on it. I was working in the area at the time and so had to see it going and coming, and we began forming strange names for the re-textured house just to cope, like "hell house on the hill".  LOL

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

SL content needs to be modifiable in almost all cases. However, I do understand the horror some go through when seeing something they created re-textured poorly, because my name is on it!  Hey, I didn't do that!.

Case in point, once a partner and myself created the most lovely of houses with our own specially created wood texture.  I chanced upon this house out in the wild and the new owner had textured it into brown, shiny plastic!! It looked horrible, I mean even in a Walt Disney caricatured setup it would be colorful plastic!  But there it sat, high on a hill, with my name on it. I was working in the area at the time and so had to see it going and coming, and we began forming strange names for the re-textured house just to cope, like "hell house on the hill".  LOL

I get this. As an SL photographer who sells her work, I understand that sense of proprietary pride in something one has created. It actually bugs me (a little, at least) when I see someone who has resized one of my images, but messed up the aspect ratio when doing so.

BUT . . . this argument also reminds me a little of "elite" creators in RL who make stipulations. A classic was that very talented, first-class POS fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld, who deliberately restricted the sizes available for his creations because he didn't want to see "curvy" or "overweight" women wearing them. "No one wants to see curvy women," he opined, and he (and other designers too) made sure that they were certainly not to be seen in their own haute couture.

**** 'em, says I. I'll wear what I want. And I'll do what I want with things I've purchased in SL.

[Ceka Cianci]

I've cut the fat and settled on a fair solution..

Creators can do what they want and so can we.

Out of sight out of mind.

hehehe

[Midnoot]

7 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

 

Other 3d asset platforms don't have all the choice that SL'ers too. The vast MAJORITY of users of 3d assets out there (if not game devs, etc) just take the item and plop it in their world and move on.

Yes  , and that is one of the main reasons that second life retains a lot of users over the competition. The customization in second life is far more in depth than most of it's competitors that just plop the assets down, as you put it . Most of the mainstream creators in second life who make their stuff no mod are just increasing the likelihood of second life losing numbers . Lol.

Edited April 26 by Midnoot

[Lord Pole]

A lot of the "no mod" thinking goes back into the distant days when people thought it allowed creations to be stolen. That was debunked years ago but it the thought remains - as does "clear your cache" solves all lag issues.

However, it is the right of the designer to make their original creations no modify. With that said I would encourage designers to remember that time has moved on and full bright should be used on light bulbs only and if you sell it with copy rights then please also add a script scrubbing feature to remove the texture selector/resizer once we have it the way we want it.

Thanks

[Yorkie Bardeen]

On 4/17/2024 at 3:03 PM, Love Zhaoying said:

Doesn't preventing "mod" also "help" the buyer keep from for instance, destroying their rez-faux (old school reference!) home by unlinking everything?

 

In the before times, I was a highly successful home builder and seller, by which I mean 2000+ sales per month as a sole operator without any CS team. I personally re-linked and repaired probably a handful of homes for customers where they had modified things a bit and couldn't face just rezzing a new one out of the box. I also provided what textures I could (not textures I used from 3rd parties) so they could add features that matched.

It didn't matter if they turned one of "my" houses into some weird thing people would look at and think was ugly. They bought the houses, they should enjoy them how they want. Any creator who says differently just cares about themselves more than their customers.

The only items I sold no-mod were no-copy transferable little cabins that I only made because of a lot of nagging to provide such things.

I never took up with mesh building so that's all past history for me.

I got in a weird conversation in a group with an aircraft builder who wanted to know the far ends and ins and outs of what I was doing with "her" plane. I bought the hecking thing, I was doing what I wanted with it. File under "nunya."

Recently I got some new land and bought one of Cory Edo's houses, and I'm glad and grateful that she sells with mod permissions. The building is almost unrecognisable from the vendor image now with extensive modifications and retexturing. Maybe it's not everyone's taste, maybe she wouldn't like it, I don't know, but I'm happy with it and I sincerely thank her for putting her customers first.

 

 

[Qie Niangao]

There's one point with which I once would have agreed: "2) It protects the creation from getting broken". When I was just starting out scripting, I couldn't figure out how to let customers adjust the size and shape of a prim assembly (yeah, all prims back then) while preserving geometric invariants to keep the assembly looking reasonable while the script was running. I think I'd know what to do now, so I could give that object Modify permission, but for other objects and for less experienced scripters, I could excuse having to resort to no-mod objects.

If I'd made it Copy/Modify, it would have been okay because "6) No matter what, the customer is protected anyway, as the product can be redelivered at any time". In this specific case, the object served a role-play purpose that required it to be Transfer/No-Copy, so redelivery wasn't an option; #6 really only applies to Copy perm objects, No-Mod or Mod (and I don't understand what specific risk the No-Mod objects would otherwise face).

So clearly "3) I only want you to have ONE instance of the item" relates to a disjoint class of product from that "protected" by redelivery in #6. But #3 applies to all No-Copy objects, regardless of Mod/No-Mod, same as #6 applies to all Copiable objects Mod or No-Mod.

One note about the combination of No-Copy and No-Mod: Never use this combination if the item contains a script. Just don't do it. Every one is a time bomb waiting for the next simulator glitch that stops the script with no possibility of recovery. (Really, all No-Copy objects, even without scripts, even modifiable, are just waiting for the next simulator glitch to poof them from the grid. Unless you're sure you won't mind when they eventually, inevitably vanish, No-Copy = sorrow. Thread after thread after thread of woe.)

I don't think I understand "5) The product is intended to be used as a composition, and not a building set" which seems to be about selling structures such as houses without Mod permission, products that I can't imagine anybody buying on purpose. (Maybe this is a thing with prefab backdrops? I don't really understand those products.) Anyway, reading that discussion about Land Impact, I was reminded of a very big reason for Mod permission: the ability to reduce total Land Impact by relinking elements of a scene. Many items have way more Download weight than System weight, and some are just the opposite. Link them together—only possible if they're both Modifiable—and watch them absorb each other's excesses! (Note: if they have scripts, try in a sandbox first, in case a script doesn't know to find links again after the linkset changes.)

I won't pile-on about "4) To protect IP or to discourage reverse engineering a product" because I think it's pretty clear by now that nobody who sets out to steal IP is at all deterred by a No-Mod server-side setting, whatever superstition may yet prevail. And "1) Because we reserve the right to set any permissions we want, and don't really owe anyone any explanation" is dilute beyond substance: I have the right to dress up like Bozo and play a kazoo and nobody is entitled to an explanation, but that doesn't make me immune from criticism—especially my kazoo playing.

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

There's one point with which I once would have agreed: "2) It protects the creation from getting broken". When I was just starting out scripting, I couldn't figure out how to let customers adjust the size and shape of a prim assembly (yeah, all prims back then) while preserving geometric invariants to keep the assembly looking reasonable while the script was running. I think I'd know what to do now, so I could give that object Modify permission, but for other objects and for less experienced scripters, I could excuse having to resort to no-mod objects.

I made that point (#2) too!

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

I have the right to dress up like Bozo and play a kazoo

I'd pay to see this.

[usedcars]

its about making money.  ooh that money. 

[Cristiano Midnight]

On 4/28/2024 at 5:09 AM, usedcars said:

its about making money.  ooh that money. 

Except ironically, it has the opposite effect. I refuse to buy no mod anymore on most things (I can live with it with rigged clothing, but that is it). As someone who buys a lot of things, I would much rather spend money with a creator that offers mod permissions.

[Luna Bliss]

Maybe we could contact the creator of an item we would buy if it were mod, and politely request mod permissions.  It could be that it's just not getting back to them that they're losing some sales on account of their no-mod choice.