What Justification Is There For No Mod Permissions?

[Extrude Ragu]

Just now, Stephanie Misfit said:

Being able to get returns is all well and good in theory, but what about for things like clothing, shoes and accessories? People could purchase, wear the item to an event, take photos for their blog, and then ask for a return. If returns worked this way, people could have an endless wardrobe without paying a cent. I think that some of the same concerns would apply for furnishings and homes, too.

You mean... kinda like people do IRL?

[Stephanie Misfit]

1 minute ago, Extrude Ragu said:

You mean... kinda like people do IRL?

I am sure that there are a handful of people who avoid paying for things by getting returns on everything they buy in real life. But I think that if this was enabled in SL, a larger proportion of people would abuse it, due to the nature of the platform, with the fact that you would not need to physically go somewhere or put something in the mail to return it. Digital refunds are too easy to exploit. Even refunds on Steam come with some strict conditions and criteria.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Stephanie Misfit said:

I am sure that there are a handful of people who avoid paying for things by getting returns on everything they buy in real life. But I think that if this was enabled in SL, a larger proportion of people would abuse it, due to the nature of the platform, with the fact that you would not need to physically go somewhere or put something in the mail to return it. Digital refunds are too easy to exploit. Even refunds on Steam come with some strict conditions and criteria.

At least you get it back in new condition without ketchup stains and ripped seams from them trying to fit in to large of a body into skinny jeans!

[Extrude Ragu]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

At least you get it back in new condition without ketchup stains and ripped seams from them trying to fit in to large of a body into skinny jeans!

Oh, to work in retail

[Extrude Ragu]

12 minutes ago, Stephanie Misfit said:

I am sure that there are a handful of people who avoid paying for things by getting returns on everything they buy in real life. But I think that if this was enabled in SL, a larger proportion of people would abuse it, due to the nature of the platform, with the fact that you would not need to physically go somewhere or put something in the mail to return it. Digital refunds are too easy to exploit. Even refunds on Steam come with some strict conditions and criteria.

Refunds on Steam do exist, though. So the precedent for digital refunds is already well established and clearly works.

Perhaps the most productive thing to do would be to study Steams refund policy and for us to learn from them how they monitor and prevent abuse of the refund system successfully.

[Qie Niangao]

Returning to the original thread topic, I'm not a lawyer but I rather doubt there's any legal substance to the Mod / No-Mod permission. If the Lab suddenly decided that No-Mod just wasn't going to work anymore, I don't really think there'd be any legal consequences of the change.

That's in contrast to the Copy and Transfer permissions which are grounded in copyright law. The grounding for restricting modification is… what? John Deere tractors and iPhone screens locked to dealer-only repairs?

No such "No-Mod No More" change would ever happen, of course. But it's diverting to imagine what SL would be like if everything always permitted modification from the very start. Yeah, a few things would be impossible, but would we really miss them? Are we sure there'd be less content if No-Mod were never an option for creators?

I'm not sure. I'd probably want "tamper resistant packaging" for scripts (at least) so end users could detect modification, but otherwise… it would be a different platform with different economics and different users, but on balance maybe for the better.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Returning to the original thread topic, I'm not a lawyer but I rather doubt there's any legal substance to the Mod / No-Mod permission. If the Lab suddenly decided that No-Mod just wasn't going to work anymore, I don't really think there'd be any legal consequences of the change.

I think that could be contested though for scripts.

[Codex Alpha]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think that could be contested though for scripts.

Nope. If we decided to do this, it's across the board. No creation is more or less than the other, and everything is mod.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Nope. If we decided to do this, it's across the board. No creation is more or less than the other, and everything is mod.

Well I imagine a lot of creators would pull out of SL then if their copyrighted scripts could be copied by anyone. Be the same as making all mesh dae's accessible.  

[Qie Niangao]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think that could be contested though for scripts.

Possibly. But the fact that a script source is exposed in order to modify it does not grant any license to copy or distribute it. I can imagine some complexity, though, if the script author granted copy and/or transfer license under the assumption that no modification could apply (especially if there were no way to detect that a modification occurred, as I mentioned).

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Possibly. But the fact that a script source is exposed in order to modify it does not grant any license to copy or distribute it. I can imagine some complexity, though, if the script author granted copy and/or transfer license under the assumption that no modification could apply (especially if there were no way to detect that a modification occurred, as I mentioned).

I know of a number of scripters that would pull new and old scripts out immediately should that sort of change occur. DMCA's would likely be flying thick and fast.

[Qie Niangao]

11 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Nope. If we decided to do this, it's across the board. No creation is more or less than the other, and everything is mod.

I've gotta run for a few hours, but to be clear I'm not suggesting we "decide" anything like this; nothing like this would ever happen. So the rules we make up for the hypothetical are to be selected for intellectual amusement, nothing more.

[Extrude Ragu]

11 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Nope. If we decided to do this, it's across the board. No creation is more or less than the other, and everything is mod.

I find it amusing that when another forum member ponders if SL would work without no-mod objects, you feel so threatened by it you feel the need to move the goalposts, in an attempt to shift focus and make it sound less feasible 🤭 Are you really so threatened by the idea of customers being able to tint their shirts?

 

 

[Qie Niangao]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I know of a number of scripters that would pull new and old scripts out immediately should that sort of change occur. DMCA's would likely be flying thick and fast.

That's fine. Might be fun to watch. But if all LSL scripts had been open source from the beginning, as a scripter I do not think the platform would be noticeably deprived of scripts.

[Codex Alpha]

12 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well I imagine a lot of creators would pull out of SL then if their copyrighted scripts could be copied by anyone. Be the same as making all mesh dae's accessible.  

Sure, but some of the arguments and demands made in this topic could be applied to scripts too, so...
To be clear, I'm all for protecting IP, while giving the most use by the consumer - a balance. That balance is already here by allowing creators to choose what permissions they want on a product. People shaming them doesn't make their arguments any stronger.

A simple open door script doesn't need to be protected, or a simple teleport script. Those should be considered 'simple' and basic scripts available to all. However a script that operates a multi-piece (linked) composition, and how it accesses Flickr or how it rezzes things and makes them spin and react to user input doesn't need to be open. The points made about allowing the user to 'fix' the product, be it a script or part of a composition are equal, and apply to both. Some creators don't want their products pulled apart, or messed with, and it is THEY that are the most qualified to fix their product, and through iteration and updates can make a stable product.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

That's fine. Might be fun to watch. But if all LSL scripts had been open source from the beginning, as a scripter I do not think the platform would be noticeably deprived of scripts.

The english language is open source too but how to you fit the words together can most certainly be copyrighted as I suspect scripts are too.

[Codex Alpha]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

The english language is open source too but how to you fit the words together can most certainly be copyrighted as I suspect scripts are too.

Ingredients for a dish are open source and available to all, but how the cook concocted the dish is IP, and is worth some value. Or we should all share everything and there's no reason to spend the time to innovate or create something elaborate or amazing - as it will just be taken away from  you. This is why these kind of discussions smack of an ideology more than anything else, and the topic and others and the forum itself is a battleground for some to affect greater social change in the world.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said:

Ingredients for a dish are open source and available to all, but how the cook concocted the dish is IP, and is worth some value. Or we should all share everything and there's no reason to spend the time to innovate or create something elaborate or amazing - as it will just be taken away from  you. This is why these kind of discussions smack of an ideology more than anything else, and the topic and others and the forum itself is a battleground for some to affect greater social change in the world.

Part of the potential issue I see with scripts is that they would expose the channels they are working on and that would expose them to being griefed. Too risky for that sort of vulnerability.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Part of the potential issue I see with scripts is that they would expose the channels they are working on and that would expose them to being griefed. Too risky for that sort of vulnerability.

See in Opensim scripts are exposed already BUT one can have a backup of all their items so that if their content is griefed and broken, they could at least pull out a backup. In SL one does not have that option.

[Love Zhaoying]

19 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

Are you really so threatened by the idea of customers being able to tint their shirts?

They must buy my fatpacks!!

[Drayke Newall]

8 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

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!"

You seem to post under the assumption that no-mod specifically relates to editing an object only. That is to say, changing its appearance in some form to something that differs from the creators 'vision' - changing the texture or pulling it apart. It doesn't and the no-mod function is deeper than just that.

Whilst, yes LL gave the tools for an object to be no-mod, the creators that do insist their 'creations' to be no-mod never take into consideration that the no-mod feature affects other areas as well, not just stopping someone from editing their creation appearance wise, like you also seem to think is the case.

As has already been mentioned, no-mod also stops a person renaming the object to something they can find or categorise easily in their inventory so, I wont expand further on that.

That said, a very little known and obscure feature tied to no-mod objects also relates to how a group can manage items on a group owned region.

If an object is ticked shared and then deeded, people assume that is the end of deeding. This is not the case though. If an object once deeded and share is re-ticked (selected) any group member can move, rotate, etc that object as should be with share being ticked. HOWEVER, when deeded and the object is re-marked as share, this also governs whether an object can be deleted or returned by someone of the group without having specific group role permissions to do so.

For example, I set an apartment as furnished for rent with the clause that the renter can move, rotate and/or return the objects set to group due to them being deeded and shared (to have them not need to buy anything or for them to redecorate as they see fit). I do this by deeding and sharing the object so that that person can move, rotate or return those objects without me granting dangerous group role settings to them that would allow them to return or mod any/all group owned objects, i.e. they can only return or move the group objects in the apartment. This means I also dont need to create a separate group just for renters.

In this case modable and non-modable objects perform a key and very specific group and region management role.

That is to say, if an object is MODABLE and set to the group as deeded and shared, a person of that group without the group role permission to do so CAN return or delete said deeded object. If however, the object is NO-MOD and set to the group as deeded and shared, a person of that group without the group role permission to do so CANNOT return or delete said deeded object.

So no-mod isn't just a case of stopping people from reverse engineering, resizing, unlinking, retexturising, etc as 99.9% of these no-mod advocates think it is. You and others arguing FOR no mod are not only denying users the ability to correctly organise their inventory but also specifically denying region owners' (and hired region landscapers) abilities to manage their sim content as well.

It is also why when you say other platforms dont allow this or that is irrelevant as other platforms do not manage no-mod/mod objects the same way as Second Life does.

Edited May 1 by Drayke Newall

[Zalificent Corvinus]

6 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

That's my Rowan...the most important thing to do in a disagreement is to punish the one not on your side!

The technical term for people "not n your side" who keep trying to make you conform to their side, is "Enemy".

Punish the Enemy.

Customer: "I wish stuff was modify so I can make minor much needed adjustments"

Whiny Creator: "I am a leet ARTISTE, NO-Mod for the win! You shall NOT pass! I declare my self your Enemy! Also I demand the right to control your windlight and water settings, and your camera, via experience code abuse, because ART Griefing!"

Customer: "Good luck getting any of my business, I'll shop elsewhere"

Whiny Creator: "OMG! Why are you punishing me!"

 

6 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

The real punishment is having seen some of the stuff people in SL create and call artistic.

^ THIS ^

 

6 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

I must admit that I've always wondered why people would assume that attacking, belittling or otherwise disparaging a creator will somehow make them more amenable to their requests.

We don't, we just don't feel any urge to suck up to and kiss the over entitled butts of the ones who we know we don't want to buy from because their head-up-own-ass self-proclaimed leet-artiste-is-always-right attitude is offensive.

 

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

5 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

 

LMFAO, do it, at that price for stuff that's obviously of an excessive poly count for SL, you might get some sales, but everything there can be had for less, with more SL friendly non-lag inducing poly counts, and often full perm. Do please allow your "artiste" pretensions to drive off customers.

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

6 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Idea: Publish a list! A "boycott" list!

Somebody started a thread some time back, to post brands in SL that sell modify perm clothing.

 

The Whiny Overentitled Self-Proclaimed "Artiste" types screamed and ranted about the thread, claimed it was "unfair".

 

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

5 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

You don't have to buy it, but I would say you're going to far if you decide to do some crusade to boycott a particular creator or to disparage them or cause them loss of reputation or status in the community because they don't do what you would like.

There are a number of different grocery chains in the town I live in, I used to shop at Brand A, but then they decided to STOP selling the products I usually bought, because it didn't fit their "superioor ideology", diet drinks instead of varieties with sugar in, low fat mild cheddar instead of mature chaddar, etc.

I STOPPED shopping there, and now shop at Brand B, who sell what customers want.

 

This is a simple principle that applies to retailers in the REAL WOLRD.

Only in SL to "common retailers" call them selves "Artistes" and demand the right to belittle the customers "vision" because "they are not leet artistes like Me ME Me Me Me!"

 

5 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:

Appreciate the work that goes into these things, and consider why some would choose to no-mod their items and accept it.

We already did. 1) Technical incompetence believing it protects against copy-botting when it doesn't, 2) A load of insulting blather about how they are "Artistes", and superior to mere customers, who lack their "vision".

 

5 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

"You will take what you're given, and you will learn to enjoy it"

Yup that's the correct translation of the previous quote.

 

5 hours ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

No, it's not, its bang on the money.