What Justification Is There For No Mod Permissions?

[Carolyn Zapedzki]

Personally, I don't see it as a big deal. if I want a modifiable produce then I buy it,  if I don't want a product that is no mod then I don't buy it. We can pick and choose what we want to buy. It's that simple.

[Codex Alpha]

2 hours ago, Carolyn Zapedzki said:

Personally, I don't see it as a big deal. if I want a modifiable produce then I buy it,  if I don't want a product that is no mod then I don't buy it. We can pick and choose what we want to buy. It's that simple.

Right, so I don't know why the discussion and the claims made as to the intent of the creators of said products continues... It's all  so simple.

What is the goal for those that post further? What do they seek to accomplish or what changes would they like to see?

 

AND.... they continue below in the next posts to return to slandering creators who don't give them products with permissions that they outright DEMAND, including some entitlement to tear apart creations (unlinking) and using them as cheaper building parts because... "They're immoral, and I'm entitled to it!"

Edited April 30 by Codex Alpha
Further observations

[Extrude Ragu]

One of the things I find very immoral about choosing to sell no-mod is denying other residents the opportunity to learn and grow on the platform.

Second Life, back when I first started in 2008 did not have the same no-mod culture around scripts and items as it does today. My original interest in scripting, and in turn, programming was originally sparked from modifying the scripts of items I had gotten in-world.

Although I certainly did break my products, and needed help and support from the creators who sold me those products, I went on to have a successful career in software engineering IRL, inspired simply by Second Life, which puts a roof over my head to this day. I am not so sure that new users of Second Life are as likely to get this critical learning opportunity as I was so lucky to have.

Many of the creators of this era come from similar roots. I feel that many have forgotten their origins.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I agree with you here. We created it, so we should have the final say...the ultimate decision. It seems many consumers (at least those on this forum) don't believe we should have that right -- it's like they believe it should be taken away from us.

At the very least imo, SL should not have included the name of an item as a potentially No Mod characteristic. I should at the very least have the right to rename it to something relevant to me, if even only to append or prefix the original name. That ability alone I believe would have significantly reduced the backlash to much of this controversy. 

[Rowan Amore]

The only justification to no mod is the justification my parents used and I did, too..."Because I said so!"

The definitive answer for the OP.  That's it.  That's all.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

24 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Right, so I don't know why the discussion and the claims made as to the intent of the creators of said products continues... It's all  so simple.

What is the goal for those that post further? What do they seek to accomplish or what changes would they like to see?

As I take it, the "goal" is to let creators know that for some of us, at least, "no-mod" is a deal-breaker when it comes to a sale. How you respond to that information is entirely, of course, up to you.

A secondary "goal" is the rather interesting point that has been, as I've noted, introduced into this discussion with regards to the broader implications of what we might call "no-mod" culture among creators, and the particular model of passive consumerism that it tends to buttress. That might not be of interest to you, but I'd argue that it does impact on everyone's SL.

Edited April 30 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Luna Bliss]

Create the stuff yourselves if you want total control of it, ya lazybones!!   LOL

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Lysistrata Szapira said:

after they OWN it.

BAd news for ya...you never own digital content here...you have a license to use it.  Look it up.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Create the stuff yourselves if you want total control of it, ya lazybones!!   LOL

Which is precisely why I almost never use commercial backdrops anymore.

I don't think that anyone has asked for "total control" though. Tinting or resizing something, which is probably 95% of the actual modifications people make to items, are hardly that?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

BAd news for ya...you never own digital content here...you have a license to use it.  Look it up.

Does that not apply to the creators who are staking their proprietary rights over their content as well?

Pretty sure it does.

[Extrude Ragu]

In my opinion many creators are demonstrably immoral in their decision making. For example, the negative affects of gambling addiction are well known and had been well known for a long time. And yet many well known established brands in Second Life would solely sell their items as Gacha and seek to normalize the practice. It was only until law was passed that the practice finally ended.

It is my opinion that most creators simply do not have a moral justification with regards to no-mod items. And in fact, much of the no-mod culture rose out of the fact they could no longer bait customers into a gambling addiction.

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

BAd news for ya...you never own digital content here...you have a license to use it.  Look it up.

Oh noes, looking things up is the bane of my existence!

I prefer to trust those around me, so I just poke other users until I get an answer from someone I trust.

Yay for no trust issues!

 

[Luna Bliss]

10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Create the stuff yourselves if you want total control of it, ya lazybones!!   LOL

Which is precisely why I almost never use commercial backdrops anymore.

I don't think that anyone has asked for "total control" though. Tinting or resizing something, which is probably 95% of the actual modifications people make to items, are hardly that?

I've never purchased those, but I can imagine why they do that. All the individual pieces that make up a backdrop should be quite expensive when sold individually (if a complex one), yet they can provide a cheap version, an assembled product, at a much cheaper price. This is a good business decision, although they could provide a mod one at a much higher price for someone like yourself to cover the market better.

[Luna Bliss]

13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

BAd news for ya...you never own digital content here...you have a license to use it.  Look it up.

Does that not apply to the creators who are staking their proprietary rights over their content as well?

Pretty sure it does.

All my mesh is stored on my PC.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Does that not apply to the creators who are staking their proprietary rights over their content as well?

Pretty sure it does.

Does it?

I mean essentially we're talking about intellectual property rights at this point.

If a creator uploads their intellectual property to a platform with the understanding that they will have a certain amount of control over how that IP will be used then it seems reasonable that they can expect the terms under which that content is licensed to be respected.

The fundamental principle behind this isn't all that different from creators being outraged that their content was misappropriated en masse to train generative AI without any attempt to gain their permission, along with a similar argument that the people training AI were "democratizing  creativity" for the good of the masses and that somehow superseded the rights that individual creators have over their intellectual property.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

All my mesh is stored on my PC.

As well as the LL servers and every viewer's cache that has seen your mesh.

[Luna Bliss]

53 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

1 hour ago, Carolyn Zapedzki said:

Personally, I don't see it as a big deal. if I want a modifiable produce then I buy it,  if I don't want a product that is no mod then I don't buy it. We can pick and choose what we want to buy. It's that simple.

Right, so I don't know why the discussion and the claims made as to the intent of the creators of said products continues... It's all  so simple.

What is the goal for those that post further? What do they seek to accomplish or what changes would they like to see?

Whiners I tell you, whiners.

Almost ALL of my customers have been great, but many of those who don't create and are regulars on this forum come off as super-entitled and unappreciative of creators. What did we hear when word of a likely cash-out fee increase might come for us?  We heard..."hey...what you get here is gravy compared to other platforms".  No respect for our hard work most earn very little for. No concern for us at all and only a demand for more more more while we earn less less less. So yeah, not so supportive to the consumers who frequent this forum, to put it mildly.

Edited April 30 by Luna Bliss

[Katherine Heartsong]

1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said:

The original title of this thread was

"What Justification Is There For No Mod Permissions?"

As I see it, this thread was never about 'forcing' creators to change their ways, or changing their rights. It is simply a discussion of their ways, and if they are really justifiable from a moral perspective.

My opinion on the subject is no. It's not justified. It comes from a very selfish desire to extract as much money out of the platform as possible, without doing anything to sustain it so that others may thrive on it like they have done so themselves. The desire to prevent would-be creators from 'reverse engineering' their creations speaks volumes about the type of creator they are and how they think of their fellow resident or rather how they don't think of them at all.

A lot of these very same creators rely on a lot of other peoples kindness to be able to create at all. Be it the open source tools they use, the tutorials people make for them. The helpful resident who teaches them how to do something for nothing. Chances are high that they rely on hundreds of peoples kindness to make their income. This is why it rubs me the wrong way when creators complain that they might have to help a customer that broke their product. As if they don't routinely rely on other peoples kindness at all.

Kindness is not something you can force on people. It would be totalitarian to make kindness law. I will never advocate to deny a persons right to be a jerk. I'll still say that making general consumer goods like clothes and furniture no-mod is jerkish behaviour and deserves to be called such.

 

To state that no mod == selfishness, would get a failing mark in any logic class. So your morality argument is flawed from the get go because you've assumed there could only be that (selfishness) as a justification.

There have been plenty of examples given why someone might do that. They have successfully provided answers to the original question, "What Justification Is There For No Mod Permissions?", even if we don't agree with them.

Is it right? For the creator, I guess so. To others in the thread, I guess not. But that depends on your definition of right, and that seems to be the misalignment here between many of the voices.

For me, I make all my paintings no copy, no mod, and transfer. Sort of like the RL art I sell (though, granted, you could "mod" it by painting over my work but why? But I guess I wouldn't care?) I sell them for L350 (about CDN $2 dollars) for up to three hours of my real life work and time and 40 years of experience making art.

That's not selfish.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

Almost ALL of my customers have been great, but many of those who don't create and are regulars on this forum come off as super-entitled and unappreciative of creators. What did we hear when word of a likely cash-out fee might come for us?  We heard..."hey...what you get here is gravy compared to other platforms".  No concern for us and only a demand for more more more while we earn less less less. So yeah, not so supportive to the consumers who frequent this forum, to put it mildly.

The consumer in SL is at the bottom of the ladder the way the Lab runs this virtual world. Land barons first, creators second, and at bottom rung of the ladder is the consumer.

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Almost ALL of my customers have been great, but many of those who don't create and are regulars on this forum come off as super-entitled and unappreciative of creators. What did we hear when word of a likely cash-out fee might come for us?  We heard..."hey...what you get here is gravy compared to other platforms".  No concern for us and only a demand for more more more while we earn less less less. So yeah, not so supportive to the consumers who frequent this forum, to put it mildly.

Expand  

The consumer in SL is at the bottom of the ladder the way the Lab runs this virtual world. Land barons first, creators second, and at bottom rung of the ladder is the consumer.

Excuse me, working your fingers to the bone for low wages while consumers demand more from you isn't so high on the ladder.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

All my mesh is stored on my PC.

Sure, as are my images. But once you introduce them onto the platform, it's subject to the ToS

Quote

Except as otherwise described in any Additional Terms (such as a contest's official rules) which will govern the submission of your User Content, 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.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

10 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Does it?

I mean essentially we're talking about intellectual property rights at this point.

That's a good distinction -- I believe that creators do retain IP rights -- meaning, I presume, that content can be freely used on other platforms or in other contexts.

In practice, however, LL's powers under the ToS are so sweeping and all-encompassing as to suggest that they have at least equal control over your work here, while it is hosted within SL.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

Quote

Except as otherwise described in any Additional Terms (such as a contest's official rules) which will govern the submission of your User Content, 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.

I remember the outrage that erupted on the forums when LL first introduced this into the TOS, I can only imagine how much worse it would have been if they'd so much as hinted that it applied not only to LL but also SL residents in general.

[Extrude Ragu]

2 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

For me, I make all my paintings no copy, no mod, and transfer. Sort of like the RL art I sell (though, granted, you could "mod" it by painting over my work but why? But I guess I wouldn't care?) I sell them for L350 (about CDN $2 dollars) for up to three hours of my real life work and time and 40 years of experience making art.

That's not selfish.

Selfishness - The act of serving the self, be it your ego, your wallet or your tummy.

Lets be pragmatic about these terms. The act of eating food is selfish - You are feeding the self. The act of giving your food to others is selfless - You are putting others before your own needs.

Who are you serving, when you make you prevent a customer from modifying their belongings? Yourself. It is an act that serves yourself. Perhaps it is ego - You want the painting to be exactly as you made it and represent yourself. Perhaps it is time - You don't want the customer to pester you because they broke the painting. Perhaps it is value - You wish to make your painting more valuable by enforcing scarcity. Ultimately though, you are serving the self.

In this world we die if we are not at least a little bit selfish. We cannot survive without taking from this world. But how I judge others is if they also give when they take. Do they consider how much work the other person had to do, to obtain they money they are giving to you?

The reason I think that most no-mod content comes from a selfish place, is that in most cases, it is perfectly sustainable for the creator to give the customer mod permissions over their items as they take their money. Little if any consideration of the customer and the effort it took them to obtain your product is given when deciding the permissions. The creator only considers themselves.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

12 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

The fundamental principle behind this isn't all that different from creators being outraged that their content was misappropriated en masse to train generative AI without any attempt to gain their permission, along with a similar argument that the people training AI were "democratizing  creativity" for the good of the masses and that somehow superseded the rights that individual creators have over their intellectual property.

All art -- without exception, be it music, visual art, dance, or literature -- is ultimately derived from other art. Sometimes that indebtedness is direct and self-conscious, as through allusion, parody, reference, and so forth, but even where that is not the case, any creative endeavour is indebted to other creative works, through an allegiance to a particular tradition, genre, or style. To write a novel, any kind of novel, is to be indebted to the founders of that form. Even revolutionary art is only possible because there is a tradition against which to rebel.

But there is a clear difference between reference, allusion, indebtedness, etc., and outright plagiarism. And there is also a difference between mechanical reproduction and human artistic creativity that might include an attempt to mimic a style or make a reference. AI doesn't "allude," and it is by definition uncreative because it is mechanical and literally without thought.