Inventory transfer

[Pete Rembranch]

I understand about permissions - copy/mod/transfer - and why they're necessary. I also understand about their drawbacks, and it's one problem in particular that I'm concerned with here.

I've been in SL for over 2 years now and I've accumulated a lot of stuff, most it No Transfer. And now I'm stuck. I don't want to think about how much that all cost, and should I want to start over with a new character I'd have to leave all that kit behind.

I can't off hand think of a good reason why there shouldn't be a special transfer process between alts, encompassing an entire inventory. That is, the entire inventory of a character would be transferred from one account to another. This would not compromise the No Copy and No Mod restrictions, and would remain within what I see as the spirit of No Transfer.

No doubt some will disagree. I'd like to hear why.

[Peewee Musytari]

Nice idea in theory, how do you do that in practice?

If an alt was purely defined as accounts set up with the same DOB, email address & signed into from the same computer or IP address, then yeah it could work, but I doubt that that is true for every case or that it wouldn`t be open to abuse.

[Anaiya Arnold]

I'm a bit confused about the point of starting a new account and transferring everything you own to it.  That kind of makes it the same account with a different account name.  I doubt the Lab will devote resources to coding that feature, and suspect their advice would be to settle for a different display name.

 

It would be better to let us link accounts on the backend and share a single inventory (preferably accessible for basic editing on a web-page, especially move, copy, paste, delete, new folder), etc, but creators who sell multiple items to users who want one for each account would be a bit short-changed by this.

 

[Pete Rembranch]

"Nice idea in theory, how do you do that in practice?"

I've no idea. I leave that to programmers.

"If an alt was purely defined as accounts set up with the same DOB, email address & signed into from the same computer or IP address, then yeah it could work, but I doubt that that is true for every case or that it wouldn`t be open to abuse."

I used the term "alts" but in fact there's no good reason why it shouldn't also apply to other people's accounts.

The only ethical justification for a No Transfer policy is to prevent the unscrupulous from copying and re-selling. This problem wouldn't apply where an entire inventory was transferred. Inevitably some vendors take advantage and apply both No Copy & No Transfer to their products. There is an argument that this shouldn't be allowed anyway.

Anaiya Arnold said

"I'm a bit confused about the point of starting a new account and transferring everything you own to it.  That kind of makes it the same account with a different account name.  I doubt the Lab will devote resources to coding that feature, and suspect their advice would be to settle for a different display name."

LL may well suggest that, but it's not the same, for reasons that on reflection will be apparent.

"It would be better to let us link accounts on the backend and share a single inventory (preferably accessible for basic editing on a web-page, especially move, copy, paste, delete, new folder), etc, but creators who sell multiple items to users who want one for each account would be a bit short-changed by this."

Excellent idea, and one I'd be happy to settle for. As to creators being "short changed"....it's easy to see all the interminable arguments for and against this. For my part, I resent having to buy the same item twice or thrice and have little sympathy as long as vendors can apply No Copy & No Transfer to the same item.

[Darrius Gothly]

I don't see why LL can't provide an "Avatar Will" ... a specific Avatar Account that will receive the entire inventory of another Account that is being deleted.

By deleting the originating account, you guarantee that no such "gave it away but kept a copy anyway" abuse occurs. The only really big issue here would be obtaining support for products purchased by one account but now owned by another. My items are all no transfer and if I get a request for support from someone that never bought from me, I promise I'm going to subject them to some rather pointed questioning before I just start handing out free support.

Of course, if they present me with a certified copy of the "Avatar Death Certificate" and a Linden Notarized copy of the "Avatar Will" .. I'll be more receptive to handling their questions.

[Pete Rembranch]

Another good idea that I'd be happy with. It being a method by which one can start afresh without having to fork out a small fortune again. Vis a vis the issue of support, I think that comes under the heading of "a small price to pay", and I've no doubt the great majority would be prepared to pay it.

[Ceka Cianci]

i want to change realms and go horde!!

oh wait wrong game..

hey this isn't where i parked my car!! Oo

 

i could see a lot of cases that this could come into use..but it would have to be more for emergencies than just omg too much dramas in mah life hehehehe

i would think if they ever did this it would be for something that needed to be done rather than  just wanting to change  for a name or because of things we brought on ourselves..

 

[Marianne Little]

SL merchants would have fewer sales. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

It is also the content theft issue. The items is bought by avatar AAA, a content creator see avatar YYY wearing it and has no sales registred on that name. It would be the last thing that drives merchants to close their sales. How do you separate the thiefs from those who has transfered it?

It would be a lot of work, changing the rules so that you have an "item history" and this could possibly be abused by griefers, who accuse people of beeing copybotters. Maybe you will not give out your first avatars name, how would this be solved? 

Nah, I have 5 avatars and they all have some good items.... I try to use sales and offers like 50L fridays and The Dressing Room so I can dress them up in style without emptying my wallet.  

[Ceka Cianci]

the way i understood it was deleting one account and moving the whole inventory to the new avatar..

not something we the users could do..

maybe like a paid service that we had to pay LL to move everything over..

then them deleting the old avatar..

 

to me it would have to be a move that LL was involved in and moving things within the same users account..not some other account with different account information..

 

thats kind of how i read it..i may be reading it wrong though hehehe

[Peewee Musytari]

---

Pete Rembranch wrote:

 

I used the term "alts" but in fact there's no good reason why it shouldn't also apply to other people's accounts.

The only ethical justification for a No Transfer policy is to prevent the unscrupulous from copying and re-selling. This problem wouldn't apply where an entire inventory was transferred. Inevitably some vendors take advantage and apply both No Copy & No Transfer to their products. There is an argument that this shouldn't be allowed anyway.

---

 

Hmm so now your idea has lost my support...There is a very specific difference between alts and "other people`s accounts" Transferring a copy of a copiable object to another person is ripping off the creators.

The ideal system IMO would be one where perms could be "suspended" on an object, so that it can be passed to another person, something like this:

Person A has an object with Mod/Copy perms, which they suspend - They are told to delete all copies from their inventory and trash & the object can then be passed to someone else. Person B receives the object with Mod/Copy perms.

The reasons this won`t work is that with Mod perms, Person A could rename a copy of the object to avoid deleting it & also that perms on prim contents within the object  would need to be suspended too.

[Pete Rembranch]

If an entire inventory is transferred then clearly all copies are transferred too. No one's being ripped off.

A shared inventory would be a different matter. This could only be implemented between alts of the same basic account for reasons already described.

[Ceka Cianci]

unless you sold off your inventory to another person..

i don't want to play anymore  and anyone can has my stuff = Profit

 

ETA: if you are talking about within the same account  and  deleting the old i could see if there was a reason for it..but not just b'cause someone felt like it..avatars are to versatile that they don't need to move all that stuff from one to another..

i can't really even see a reason for a move really..i mean what would be a good reason for it?

user name regret?

 

[Vladi Hazelnut]

LL use to do this for a fee, not sure if they do it anymore though. But it used to be if you created a new avatar you could contact them and have your inventory transfered.

I guess the good question would be why? What is your reasoning for creating a new account in the first place. If its because you caused too much drama with the original one or you think you are about to get banned then I honestly don't feel sorry for you.

Maybe I guess if you were changing genders or something. But I did that and just kept the same name and changed genders. But I had a name that would work with either gender. I personally wouldn't want to do that because my avi has built up a reputation and a customer base. Starting with a new avi would probably do me more harm than good.

There is also another way to look at it. While many don't want to admit it this is a game, for the most part anyway. When you start a game over you start from scratch, that is just how it works. The difference being most games are not associated with real money. Being able to buy lindens and sell them for real money sort adds a complication to that I guess.

My advice would be to contact LL and ask them if they still do this. I am guessing you would probably have to have a pretty decent reason though.

I can think of some good reasons to not be able to transfer your inventory at will though. The biggest would be thieves and griefers. They run around and cause all kinds of problems, then get to start fresh again with all the tools they had before. Its bad enough that you can ban someone and they can just create an alt and come back and mess with you again. Now they would be able to do it and still keep all their inventory too. What a bonous for them and a headache for me lol. I sure wish there was a way to ban alts of those you banned already. Oh wait there was.

[Ceka Cianci]

why don't you just ask LL if you can do this as someone suggested?

it may be just that easy hehehe

[Jennifer Boyle]

I have thought for a long time that having the absolute "no transfer" permission was unfair to consumers.  All "property" in SL is virtual and is intellectual property (IP), so it should be governed by the same rules as IP in general.  The "no copy" permission is fine, since it enforces a right that the seller has to prohibit copying of her work.  "No transfer" overreaches because it enforces a right that the seller does not have.  Under the First Sale Doctrine of US law, a copyright holder gives up control of a particular copy of a work when she sells it.  If I buy a picture, or dress, in RL, I am free to resell it or give it away, even if I have altered or defaced it or cut it into pieces, and if the copyright holder takes me to court, the case will be thrown out.  

The "no modify" permission also is abusive of consumers' IP rights.  Under US law, I have the right to modify a piece of IP that I bought to my heart's content.  I can write in a book, tear pages out, paste a picture on the cover, and even substitute pages of my writings for original pages of the particular copy or copies that I bought, and then sell them.  By using "no modify," sellers are enforcing a right that they do not have.  I have heard two arguments as to why the limitation is needed: people will think my stuff is poor quality because customers will mess it up, and buyers will mess things up and then want help or replacements.  One can easily find the solutions to these objections in RL.  No one will give me warranty service or replacement when I damage something by trying to modify it , so just say "No!"  As to the second, it's pretty obvious that if everything is modifiable, all products may differ from what the creator originally made.  Even if these arguments were valid, they would not change the fact that "no modify" violates consumers' IP rights.

Obviously, enforcing IP rights that one does not possess infringes the legitimate IP rights of others. 

What would be wrong with just making "no copy" be the only permission that could be restricted?  I am sure that there are sellers who will whine that such a system would put them out of business because the market will be flooded with used merchandise.  I have two answers to that.  One is, "Innovate!  Make better stuff that is more desirable than your old stuff."  That should be easy enough, since the platform keeps improving and making more possible.  The second is that real world commerce is surviving with only "no copy" permissions on IP, even though they have to be enforced by legal action instead of technical limitation.

From the consumer's point of view, the upside of such a change is obviously enormous.  Not only would it solve the OP's problem, but we could loan or give friends things, sell them when we no longer needed them, etc.  We also could not be victimized by sellers who lie about the permissions of their products, as I have been.  There are only two reasons I can think of that I would miss being able to copy things I bought.  One is that I like to keep backups in a prim in world.  The second is that it's nice to be able to make a backup copy before modifying expensive items.  Both of these needs could be met by allowing a copy to be made, but making it impossible to rez both or transfer either until one was deleted, so that only one could be used at a time, which is really the limitation that is needed to protect sellers' rights.

Finally, why does the spell checker here not know words like OP and rez?

[Ceka Cianci]

i'm wondering  if we actually get any of those RL rights since really the only thing we do buy is L$..the only thing taxable on the ohther end is when they cash out..i'm wondering if the inbetween on our end gets any of that RL goodness hehehe

i mean if we can just have our inventories taken away for no reason at all and our accounts deleted from the grid..i wonder..do we really own that stuff?

is it looked at as tokens to buy game content in the eyes of the law?

i'm not a no trans fan myself since it has become like an outbreak to use it..i mean i have all this hair in my inventoryand clothes and all kinds of stuff that i'm going to be tossing out because  i don't use them anymore and can't give it away..

it seems like a waste..i know it could make some new user happy hehehe..

 

oh well ..either way it's going out of my inventory before the nights over..i have been putting this off for too long lol

*clicks her login really loud* here goes!! lol

[Peewee Musytari]

---

Jennifer Boyle wrote:

 

What would be wrong with just making "no copy" be the only permission that could be restricted?  I am sure that there are sellers who will whine that such a system would put them out of business because the market will be flooded with used merchandise.  I have two answers to that.  One is, "Innovate!  Make better stuff that is more desirable than your old stuff."  That should be easy enough, since the platform keeps improving and making more possible.  The second is that real world commerce is surviving with only "no copy" permissions on IP, even though they have to be enforced by legal action instead of technical limitation.

---

Hmmm..where to start on why that would be so wrong lol

Why on earth would any creator want to spend hours, days, even weeks of their time creating an item & then selling it full perms, so that someone can come along and buy it and then start selling it at half the price making back the money they paid for it and then profitting off of a product that they put in zero effort to produce at the creators expense?

Creators would also have to push up their prices to cover the reduced number of sales. There are already full perm products for sale at much higher prices than similar items with restricted perms for that very reason.

[Sammantha Koppel]

Creators could give the customers the option of buying either a copy version or a trans version. 

[Jennifer Boyle]

Peewee Musytari wrote:

Why on earth would any creator want to spend hours, days, even weeks of their time creating an item & then selling it full perms, so that someone can come along and buy it and then start selling it at half the price making back the money they paid for it and then profitting off of a product that they put in zero effort to produce at the creators expense?

 

---

I didn't say "full perm."  I said "no copy."  I thought I made it crystal clear that I have no objection to making items non-copyable, and if they cannot be copied, what you describe cannot happen.

To reiterate briefly, it's fine for sellers to prohibit copying, because they are enforcing legitimate IP rights when they do, but when they restrict modification and transfer, they are exceeding their rights and infringing purchasers' IP rights.

[Jennifer Boyle]

---

Sammantha Koppel wrote:

Creators could give the customers the option of buying either a copy version or a trans version. 

---

Many times they do for clothing and other items that one cannot effectively use more than one copy of at a time.  It's not very feasible to do that with items such that mutiple copies can be used at once.

[Darrius Gothly]

The reason it cannot be reasonably applied to Virtual Goods sales is .. Virtual Goods do not age, wear or break over time.

Garage sales in the real-world exist, but you understand the item you are purchasing is used and may not be fully function, box fresh or pretty ... because it's been used. That goes for all real-world items.

But there is no distinction between a worn dress or a new dress in a Virtual World. The concepts of wear and tear, breakage, damage, etc. just do not apply, thus there is no reason to discount the resale of a "used" virtual item.

[Peewee Musytari]

---

Jennifer Boyle wrote:

Peewee Musytari wrote:

Why on earth would any creator want to spend hours, days, even weeks of their time creating an item & then selling it full perms, so that someone can come along and buy it and then start selling it at half the price making back the money they paid for it and then profitting off of a product that they put in zero effort to produce at the creators expense?

 

---

I didn't say "full perm."  I said "no copy."  I thought I made it crystal clear that I have no objection to making items non-copyable, and if they cannot be copied, what you describe cannot happen.

To reiterate briefly, it's fine for sellers to prohibit copying, because they are enforcing legitimate IP rights when they do, but when they restrict modification and transfer, they are exceeding their rights and infringing purchasers' IP rights.

---

You were saying that all items should be mod/trans and that copy should stay optional. Since the vast majority of products are currently copiable, obviously your idea is not what the majority want, so the result would be that creators HAVE to sell full perms or no copy....So yes you were saying that.

People (in general) do not like no copy items, they are also prone to disappearing off of the grid & they are completely impractical for things such as buildings, for too many reasons to go into in a post.

[Jennifer Boyle]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

The reason it cannot be reasonably applied to Virtual Goods sales is .. Virtual Goods do not age, wear or break over time.

 

---

That is a good point.  However, you ignore the fact that people, in RL and SL, buy new things mostly because they want something new, not because what they have is worn out.  The reason they want something new may be that it is more fashionable, that it is superior in some way, or simply that it is new.  I have over 17,000 items in my inventory and a lot stored in prims, mostly clothing, which is, as you point out, in pristine condition.  Yet I keep buying more.  Why?  Because I like to shop, and when I shop I see clothing I want, and I buy it.

While things don't wear out in the virtual world, they do become obsolescent. As I mentioned before, the further development of the platform continues, and will continue indefinitely, to make more possible, and better products will naturally follow.  We now have flexiprims and sculpties and a tattoo layer, each of which made new, improved products possible.  LSL continues to be expanded. We're about to have mesh.  I never wear the high-quality hair and skin I bought four years ago because better ones are available now.  

[Paul Hexem]

---

Jennifer Boyle wrote:

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

The reason it cannot be reasonably applied to Virtual Goods sales is .. Virtual Goods do not age, wear or break over time.

 

---

That is a good point.  However, you ignore the fact that people, in RL and SL, buy new things mostly because they want something new, not because what they have is worn out.  The reason they want something new may be that it is more fashionable, that it is superior in some way, or simply that it is new.  I have over 17,000 items in my inventory and a lot stored in prims, mostly clothing, which is, as you point out, in pristine condition.  Yet I keep buying more.  Why?  Because I like to shop, and when I shop I see clothing I want, and I buy it.

While things don't wear out in the virtual world, they do become obsolescent. As I mentioned before, the further development of the platform continues, and will continue indefinitely, to make more possible, and better products will naturally follow.  We now have flexiprims and sculpties and a tattoo layer, each of which made new, improved products possible.  LSL continues to be expanded. We're about to have mesh.  I never wear the high-quality hair and skin I bought four years ago because better ones are available now.  

---

 

The other thing you're forgetting is that this is a virtual world. There are asset servers and sim crossings. No-copy means any time one of those things has an issue, my item and my money are gone. No-copy for buildings and vehicles and certain other objects is downright impractical, and in some cases, plain stupid.

[AdaliahHendrix]

Well I know in the passed 24 hours a lot of things have happened and I have been accumulating a vast amount of "hate mail" because of lies and drama spread about me which I find rather ridiculous and some people can be very dramatic. 

I'm looking to start fresh as far as the people around me,but I want to keep my inventory since I paid MAJOR L$ for everything I have.  That's a good example of why you would want a new account name with the same inventory.