What Justification Is There For No Mod Permissions?

[Rick Nightingale]

18 minutes ago, Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia said:

If I give somebody my photo album, I don't need them redistributing it, anyway.

Well, redistributing (Transfer perms) is a different kettle of cod altogether to mod perms. Regardless of that...

Your use is a perfect example of an appropriate use of No-Mod in my view:

1. You're giving it away, not selling a product to customers. I do the same with occasional Christmas gifts and the like.
2. It's your thing; your photo album with your pictures that you are providing; not an album for others to use as theirs.

 

 

 

Edited May 2 by Rick Nightingale

[Rowan Amore]

58 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

I still think you may be viewing this issue through an Advanced User or Creator goggles.

Not really an advanced user per se, although I've been here for years.  I'm also not a creator nor do I wish to be.  Not my thing.  But, when I buy that table with an assortment of items on top, I'd like to be able to remove that lamp and use another or whatever else I might like to swap out.  Nothing really advanced about that at all.  

I bought a console awhile back with linked items on top.  I didn't mind the items but I did want to tint the lamp shades to match the rest of my bedroom set.  It was mod so it was a simple process.  No need for scripts or a hud or any of that.  I edited linked parts, blah blah blah, done.

[Love Zhaoying]

One of my most favorite items is the "Paradise Blanket".  Unfortunately, it came with a very high LI Rose.  Luckily, you can unlink the rose petals, remove the rose, etc.  If not...that would have been bad.  

On the other hand, the "builds" that this same "Paradise Blanket" rezzes are all "no mod".

 

 

[Luna Bliss]

4 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

I don't have a problem with people unlinking stuff in general or having mod in general - that is just how I'm being portrayed by posters who don't read my initial arguments in good faith - and they don't understand that just because I present a position or thought - doesn't mean I believe in it or practice it myself.

I just want to control certain products for whatever reason I want to - (which are not negative, egotistical, 'elite', and all the negative framings some have said), and I shouldn't be hated, targeted or cancelled for it. I guess the only thing to do is block those people because they can't have a civil discussion without getting personal.

same here...

[Aethelwine]

20 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

I'm not sure what this is about exactly, but AVsitter has a utility script, AVpos-shifter, that's extremely useful for handling global changes of sit positions. Also, I often change the root prim of furniture I buy, and this script is also indispensable for doing that—almost automatically. Thing is, AVsitter is very accessible for end-users to change things; even inexperienced users are practically lured into it once they experience the [AV]adjuster script and [AV]helper objects.

(As I mentioned earlier, any configuration notecard read by a script, regardless of its permissions settings, can be effortlessly duplicated full-perm, and AVsitter scripts, etc., cannot be distributed except with full permissions unless accompanied with a whole license statement and disclosure how to obtain those full-perm originals.)

So… "if one uses Av Sitter, consumer can't access it to tweak it" is confusing to me.

They might be using an earlier version of avsitter scripts released prior to them being open source?

[Aethelwine]

For furniture I just wouldn't buy unless it was mod, I often store furniture arrangements in rezzers and that wouldn't work unless you can rename the object and add a script.

For mesh clothes I am ambivalent, it is nice to be able to swap out the autohide script, but I think that has only bothered me enough to do that on a couple of occasions and I have never had any desire to try linking my pants to my top. Sculpty or Flexi prim clothes though need to be mod. 

[Codex Alpha]

6 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

For furniture I just wouldn't buy unless it was mod, I often store furniture arrangements in rezzers and that wouldn't work unless you can rename the object and add a script.

Ok.. so how many people like you are there in Second Life doing this? This would be a rare activity, I would think. Does the average SL'er need to do this?

[Rick Nightingale]

23 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Does the average SL'er need to do this?

I first tried to do it when I had only been in SL a couple of years, had just got my first patch of mainland, had never made anything beyond a few prims and I don't think Blender even existed, but already understood how important mod perms were.

Not sure there is an average SL user, but I certainly wasn't in any way exceptional.

Edited May 2 by Rick Nightingale

[Midnoot]

27 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Ok.. so how many people like you are there in Second Life doing this? This would be a rare activity, I would think. Does the average SL'er need to do this?

I hate that you say this as if just because the majority of people aren't using SL products a certain way, that those who are using them uniquely, shouldn't be able to.

I do tons of things I've never seen others do with products, and that FREEDOM to do those things is a huge reason I even stay in Second Life. If they were all no-mod like the other game/programs, I would probably have abandoned SL for one of its competitors.

 

[Rick Nightingale]

Earlier in the thread I mentioned trouble in a group when someone suggested modding their clothing. Just for reference, the two people mostly saying it did not even realise that it was possible to have mod permissions on clothing. They believed what they had been told; that fitted mesh simply could not be modified. They were merely saying how nice it would be if things could be slightly tinted to match other items they had.

The whole furore that ensued took them completely by surprise, as did being told by some that is was indeed possible, just was being refused by the maker.

I find that sad, and frankly unacceptable, that the no-mod culture amongst many sellers is so strong that there are SL users that are not even aware there is an alternative because of the sellers' propaganda.

I've had related experiences in another store group, where on two occasions that I can recall I've helped people mod something, when they did not even know it was possible to do so. That was a store that has always sold their things (clothing, rigged avatar accessories, all sorts of stuff) with mod permissions. Even in that group there were people totally unaware that it was possible to modify their items to their liking without being limited by a HUD.

Edited May 2 by Rick Nightingale

[Midnoot]

1 minute ago, Rick Nightingale said:

Earlier in the thread I mentioned trouble in a group when someone suggested modding their clothing. Just for reference, the two people mostly saying it did not even realise that it was possible to have mod permissions on clothing. They believed what they had been told; that fitted mesh simply could not be modified. They were merely saying how nice it would be if things could be slightly tinted to match other items they had.

The whole furore that ensued took them completely by surprise, as did being told by some that is was indeed possible, just was being refused by the maker.

I find that sad, and frankly unacceptable, that the no-mod culture amongst many sellers is so strong that there are SL users that are not even aware there is an alternative.

I've had related experiences in another store group, where on two occasions that I can recall I've helped people mod something, when they did not even know it was possible to do so. That was a store that has always sold their things (clothing, rigged avatar accessories, all sorts of stuff) with mod permissions. Even in that group there were people totally unaware that it was possible to modify their items to their liking without being limited by a HUD.

I've noticed this amongst newer users of SL as well. It absolutely kills me that the anti-consumer side of the marketplace has become so prevalent that it's the norm. Sounds like Apple vs Android all over. Modify items are like android with the ENDLESS amount of accessories available for the device, compared to Apple's devices ONLY being compatible with other products bought from apple.

[Codex Alpha]

22 minutes ago, Midnoot said:

I hate that you say this as if just because the majority of people aren't using SL products a certain way, that those who are using them uniquely, shouldn't be able to.

I, nor any other creator that has posted on this topic, when it comes up every 6 months or so - have ever had or promoted that position. I asked a question.

When people argue some unique use cases as to why all my products should be modifiable (Not sure everyone agrees as to WHAT should be), it kind of conflicts against my general opinion about 'no mod' which is:

"It's nice to have, for sure, but it's not necessary".

I've also given many use cases as to why a creator would want to no-mod an item, with supporting statements. The response is nasty accusations and assumptions of conceit, greed and whatever else.

To be clear, I'm ALL FOR giving the end user as much customizability as possible, but only as long as it doesn't conflict with my intentions and end-use intentions for the product that I would make.

It doesn't seem that in this topic, that either 'side' has come to an agreement that would make all parties happy. I'd be happy to simply control unlinking or not.. and I don't like my product name changed, or linked to another object with another creator's name on it - SL never said that my products could be derived from (which is IMVU's model)

 

13 minutes ago, Midnoot said:

I've noticed this amongst newer users of SL as well. It absolutely kills me that the anti-consumer side of the marketplace has become so prevalent that it's the norm. Sounds like Apple vs Android all over. Modify items are like android with the ENDLESS amount of accessories available for the device, compared to Apple's devices ONLY being compatible with other products bought from apple.

How is it anti-consumer?

With some of the statements and views and accusations so far, I could maybe claim that demanding full access to products, and trying to shame, boycott or punish in any way creators who do so as 'anti-creator'.

It seems so far that at the core of this is really ideological differences, more than practical - which LL could solve itself by changing how access to products work. Protecting vital parts or construction of parts, while allowing customization of features that a MAJORITY of users will want to have access to. Most arguments for mod here are made by super-users, land owners, and those who seem to think they can fix and improve a product without the creator being involved...

[Rick Nightingale]

31 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

I, nor any other creator that has posted on this topic, when it comes up every 6 months or so - have ever had or promoted that position.

You do exactly that, simply by setting no-mod on the product.

31 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

To be clear, I'm ALL FOR giving the end user as much customizability as possible, but only as long as it doesn't conflict with my intentions and end-use intentions for the product that I would make.

So, you will only allow the customer to do what you want. They own the product, they bought it, why should you have the right to  still behave as if you own it and limit what they can do with it?

It comes down to your selfish desires to maintain your ownership of something, while still being able to sell it to others for money. It's a 'have your cake and eat it' situation and in the current system, you get to do exactly that.

31 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

demanding full access to products

You keep using that sort of phrase. No-one here has once 'demanded' 'full access' - phrasing it that way is trying to paint those wanting mod perms in a bad light, by making out they are 'demanding' something unacceptable. Mod perms is not 'full access'.

31 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

It seems so far that at the core of this is really ideological differences, more than practical

It's both. I believe in empowering people and freedom. I find that incompatible with no-mod and being controlled and limited by someone else's views on what I can and cannot do* with things I own, just because they want to and have been given the ability by an imperfect system.

*Within limits of reason, like not illegal copying etc., just to forestall that diversionary argument.

Edited May 2 by Rick Nightingale

[Codex Alpha]

Similar to how buying land from LL and running your sim, you could consider the same usage of assets that are available through the SL MP, which can be crazy affordable in many cases.

You don't own the computer and server that your sim runs on, but you are granted all other controls of that asset.

You are also in conflict of the agreement you entered into every time you sign in with the Viewer.

Your battle is not with me or creators, but the Terms of Service and licenses and expected end use through permissions systems created by LL itself.

Edited May 2 by Codex Alpha

[Rick Nightingale]

Nonsense. I'm not in conflict with the TOS - be careful what you accuse.

The terms refer to ownership of the assets; it even says IPR. You are confusing ownership of a real-world digital asset (and the 'rights' that accompany that ownership) with 'owning' something within the SL 'world'. I feel it's an attempt to throw off the argument because you cannot satisfactorily justify no-mod perms; your arguments for it almost entirely boil down to "because I want to and I can".

54 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Your battle is not with me or creators, but the Terms of Service and licenses and expected end use through permissions systems created by LL itself.

I'm not in a battle; I'm discussing something on a forum, as are you. To answer your point though, while LL has chosen to allow the ability to set mod perms, it is those users in SL setting them on products they sell that cause the problem. LL in no way forces or even encourages you to set no-mod on a product. Only sellers choose to do that (or not), taking advantage of an imperfect system to impose their will on others; to have their cake and eat it while the consumers are firmly limited as nothing more than that... consumers of your product.

I would say that LL should have made a better system (for both sides of the argument), and still should look at it especially with all the changes being made. They won't; we both know that.

Just because you can, doesn't make it right.

-------

Why do I even bother having this discussion...? My hope is that others reading it, who might become content creators, will get a clue and make their stuff modifiable for the benefit of us all; themselves included. I've never for a moment thought it would convince anyone already set in their ways to change. And with that... unless anyone says anything particularly interesting or new, I'm out. Again 🤣

Edited May 2 by Rick Nightingale

[Luna Bliss]

I hope they keep making no-mod clothes. This allows them to sell 1 color/pattern at a cheap price, and then up the price for those who desire or can afford a fatpack. I imagine if they allowed retexturing with a mod item they'd have to up the price of the clothing item considerably to make any money at all.

Often I just want to buy one version/texture of an item, so this is great for my budget.  If I reaaaaaly reaaaaaly like something though I will buy the fatpack.

Edited May 2 by Luna Bliss

[Crim Mip]

Other than clothing where a maker may wish to sell different colors of the same piece of apparel, I almost never buy no-mod (or no-copy) items. I've seen build kits or sets of buildings designed to go together in a build being no-mod which is idiotic. The main issue I have with the old Gatcha and various current versions of that are that the items are no-copy/no-mod. A few creators let you switch from transfer versions to copy/mod versions, but most don't.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

7 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

Ok.. so how many people like you are there in Second Life doing this?

Lots.

 

7 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

This would be a rare activity

No.

 

7 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

Does the average SL'er need to do this?

Possibly.

 

 

[Midnoot]

9 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

I, nor any other creator that has posted on this topic, when it comes up every 6 months or so - have ever had or promoted that position. I asked a question.

When people argue some unique use cases as to why all my products should be modifiable (Not sure everyone agrees as to WHAT should be), it kind of conflicts against my general opinion about 'no mod' which is:

"It's nice to have, for sure, but it's not necessary".

I've also given many use cases as to why a creator would want to no-mod an item, with supporting statements. The response is nasty accusations and assumptions of conceit, greed and whatever else.

To be clear, I'm ALL FOR giving the end user as much customizability as possible, but only as long as it doesn't conflict with my intentions and end-use intentions for the product that I would make.

It doesn't seem that in this topic, that either 'side' has come to an agreement that would make all parties happy. I'd be happy to simply control unlinking or not.. and I don't like my product name changed, or linked to another object with another creator's name on it - SL never said that my products could be derived from (which is IMVU's model)

 

How is it anti-consumer?

With some of the statements and views and accusations so far, I could maybe claim that demanding full access to products, and trying to shame, boycott or punish in any way creators who do so as 'anti-creator'.

It seems so far that at the core of this is really ideological differences, more than practical - which LL could solve itself by changing how access to products work. Protecting vital parts or construction of parts, while allowing customization of features that a MAJORITY of users will want to have access to. Most arguments for mod here are made by super-users, land owners, and those who seem to think they can fix and improve a product without the creator being involved...

Do I really need to explain how telling me that I can't replace the battery in my phone, or change the case on my phone to a different color, or pair my phone with another product I own ( Because it has been intentionally rendered incompatible with other products), is anti consumer? No modify is practically that, but in SL. 

You want people to admit that something isn't necessary? Sure. It's not necessary for us to have more freedom in SL than ANY other game/program out there. It's not necessary for us to be able to customize the products we've purchased with our hard earned REAL LIFE MONEY to such a degree that it borders game developer levels of art/texturing/derivation, etc. None of that is necessary. Doesn't mean I'm going promote the removal of it.

 

And the fact that there is room to grow into one of those "super users" as you called them, is also another unique to SL feature. Everywhere else, we're FORCED to remain a basic entry level user because we don't have the option to expand.  It starts in world,  not in some separate program like gimp, photoshop, blender , etc , which requires a whole other level of dedication. Small steps like shading something a different color , or de linking something to lower render cost , or adding your own scripts to transform the product into an infinite amount of possible utilities , or making part of the product transparent because you didn't  like that addition [ like a multiple texture faced outfit which can't be de linked, but can be texture modified because it's all one mesh. For example: making the shirt invisible but keeping the pants visible. Allowing you to interchange tops instead.  etc . Just an example of being able to repurpose or fix products and bad decisions of the creator for making it all one mesh instead of multiple parts .

 

Edited May 3 by Midnoot

[Midnoot]

I just wanna shout out to creators who go as far as to make their products modifiable,  provide psd, substance, full mod textures, for those products. You are a God send. Even if you're disgustingly rare. I will buy your products and use them into the ground because I can change them up in so many ways when I've become bored of the previous customization.  The reusability and longevity is what draws me in. I'm not USUALLY gonna buy 3-4 different colors of the same product in order to get the colors I want , and I'm USUALLY   not gonna buy the over priced fatpack that Includes 50 trash colors I would never even consider. Then be crippled by the amount of linden I've wasted .  Out of principle more than anything. 

Edited May 3 by Midnoot

[Kristy Aurelia]

I've made a google doc a while back listing all the reasons why stuff should be mod (at least all the ones I could think of, I'm sure there's more):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kosnx9oPTZMrMixtH35zvKUhDC2XlVt2HKZ-uH7csOM

Since I've only noticed this thread now, I'll have to go through it later and add a few more points about stuff I noticed while skimming through it.

Edit: Also worth noting, I only buy mod stuff, with very very rare exceptions, such as a body, or something that does need tampering prevention - like a board game or a gift card.
And my own creations are mod-mesh, no-mod scripts and the scripts are even designed to not use specific link IDs, to allow people to do whatever they like with them.

Edited May 3 by Kristy Aurelia

[Aethelwine]

Using a rezzer system is a game changer for small parcels, like the trailers.

With a rezzer I can decorate my trailer, have some garden furniture, a skybox with a rezzer to add in furniture I commonly like to use in private and have enough Prims left to be able to rezz my horse or other vehicle 

 

[Qie Niangao]

This is not a widespread use, but for me rezzers are indispensable for restoring old products I've worked on at various locations in my workspace. Somehow I can remember those locations better than anything else about the objects, so having a rezzer somewhere near that location, with a selection of a dozen or so items I associate with that location, is the only way I can find a thing when I want to remind myself how I did whatever tricks were needed for that item.

But I think rezzers may become very common in the future, when content comes in much larger chunks than we've become accustomed to, and whole categories of content (like furniture) will become less common. Many folks already have rezzers for their selection of photo backdrops, and I imagine the same will apply to how people consume all content when scenes become the standard mode of distribution.

I also suspect the demand for some level of customization for such complex scenes will result not only in more Mod permission but also more elaborate support for modification in the structure of the scene / object hierarchies and surface layouts. Consumers will learn to assess the quality of those products on the basis of how easily and usefully they can be customized—and not just by scripts.

The bad news is, I think, this shift will leave behind quite a few content creators.

[Theresa Tennyson]

Theresa Tennyson muses, "Does that person's hippie personality ever get into fights with her business personality? Because that would be something to see..."

[Thecla]

On 5/1/2024 at 3:04 PM, Codex Alpha said:

I bet every reason that someone would need mod (and demand it) can be answered through script interfaces anyway, which gives the consumer what they want even if it is no-mod - so I don't see the problem.

I really doubt this. I frequently retexture the upholstery on certain pieces of furniture to meet the surrounding decor. Think of it as going to a fabric store and choosing the specific fabric that you want for a chair you bought where the pattern was wrong for it's placement.

I frequently buy a table that comes with clutter on it, which I don't want. I unlink the clutter, then retexture the top to remove the baked in shadows. Or if the clutter is part of the mesh but a separate face, I make it transparent (yes, accomplishable through a script).

I frequently takes parts of pre-built buildings and backdrops and recombine them to make different structures.

I will retexture buildings with baked in lighting to eliminate it so it fits with the lighting that I have created.

I rip the lighting control scripts out of every light fixture I buy and set the light values specifically how I want them for their location.

And I tint almost EVERYTHING that I rez to fit the lighting in it's environment.

Lastly, and this is important, the ability to group numerous objects from different vendors allows you to dramatically reduce the LI impact of an unlinked collection of objects.

I've tried to find a good example. In this room, virtually everything has been modified in terms of size, tint, pattern, and finally grouped to get the end result that *I* wanted:

You also said at one point "To be clear, I'm ALL FOR giving the end user as much customizability as possible, but only as long as it doesn't conflict with my intentions and end-use intentions for the product that I would make."

I think this is the rub here. People may have different end-use intentions for the things they buy than you do. You do have the right to restrict that use by virtue of no-mod permissions. I think that the availability of making something no-mod within LL's architecture implicitly gives you the right. I also think that the *ability* to set any given item in SL to no mod is important as there are obviously use cases where it is appropriate. But I personally think that doing it for any other reason than protecting intellectual property runs against the very ethic of Second Life. It's not unethical per se, but rather it goes against the grain of a big part of what makes Second Life special. So we must agree to disagree.

I'll end by saying "at least it's better than it was."  I think the general trend, aside from clothing, is towards making products modify. As I mentioned earlier, most well respected creators leave their products modify, and I really appreciate that and the trend towards that.

Edited May 3 by Thecla